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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (8447)	9/8/2007 8:21:16 AM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

I think the direct attack would make more sense than attacking someplace we know that he isn't, hoping to attract him to move to the new location. Of course that only matters if you are fighting a war against terrorists. I could still make sense if you are doing something else and calling it a war against terror. You know, just using that "war against terror" thing as a cover. So fill me in. Is this a war against terror? If so, I think we missed the target. If it is not the war against terror, then what is it? What is the target? At this point I think we may have gotten Sadam at a cost of not getting OBL & Co.