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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (433344)	11/6/2008 11:54:42 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572108

But they were both attacks against our country and de facto declarations of war... They were different in far, far more ways than they were the same. Yes there is always a risk of a terrorist attack in this country. But the fact that only two significant ones have happened in modern history (both by the same guy who is still on the loose thanks to you know who) confirms that it's not that easy. And the way to combat terrorism is good police/FBI work in this country and good CIA, in conjunction with other countries intelligence forces, work overseas. You rabid right guys think wars are going to help, when they actually hurt. Getting off imported oil would go a long way towards reducing the threat, because we could stop meddling in the Middle East... the chief reason we are a target in the first place. In the meantime to makes sense to look at the rare terrorism act as the price we pay for dependence on oil. You do what you can to stop them, but there is no way to be 100% secure... certainly not by fighting outrageously expensive wars. You want to be secure? Get off oil. It would remove the cause as well as the funding of terrorism against the US.