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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (70928)	6/5/2008 9:06:12 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 542153

>>Al Qaeda, is Al Qaeda to me. Which isn't saying that different parts of it can not be looked at, or reacted to differently, but Al Qaeda in Iraq, and Al Qaeda's groups elsewhere, are Al Qaeda. In the tribal border areas of Pakistan Al Qaeda has gotten stronger.<< Tim - I'm glad we agree on that last point. As for the former one, I think it's a mistake to lump all groups calling themselves Al Qaeda into one. The reason that terrorist groups in Algeria and Iraq began using that name is simply that it had developed a certain cache after 9/11 - it was scary. Inciting fear is the name of the game for these people. I'd argue that our failure to deal decisively with bin Laden and al Zawahiri is responsible in large part for the resurgence in their status. However, I also believe that they represent less of a threat to us than they are often made out to be. They are still a threat, and they need to be dealt with, but our nation's survival is not at risk. Just my opinions, as always, and I remain open to new information. - Allen