Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (234909)	7/2/2007 10:56:46 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

I have never said terrorism was not a real danger. It is actually because I do see it as a real danger, though not our main danger, that I find illogical fear about it so annoying. It keeps us from doing what needs to be done, imo, and we waste money on stupid things. Willingness to do us harm is not proof of capability. If anything the London attacks show that there is no real capability out there. Now it is true, capability could emerge, and I support planning for that. I've even outlined plans of my own- since intelligent terrorists have better soft targets than airports. The fact that these soft targets have not been hit tells me 1. there aren't many of them (terrorists, not soft targets) and 2. luckily they aren't very intelligent. There is overblown rhetoric on both sides (though usually there isn't much from me), and I'm actually kind of in the middle on this. I want us to go after terrorists, but I prefer well thought out well targeted attacks. I think an appropriate sense of present risk is part of that. As we know, one can imagine all sorts of things. Our citizenry imagined Iraq was involved in 9/11, which led them to support the Iraq war- had they not had that irrational belief, who knows where we'd be now? But I suspect we might not be in Iraq.