SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Road Walker who wrote (435752)11/19/2008 3:24:26 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575596
 
I'm just disputing that is easy. If so, with all the disparate groups that claim associations with AQ, certainly we would have had one attack.

The reason it isn't "easy" is that Bush has been totally on top of the situation. If we have people in the new administration who are complacent about it, as you are, that is all lost and it will once again be "easy".

It was "easy" on 9/11/01 because Clinton treated these organizations like criminals rather than enemies. This fact is well-documented, even by liberals such as O'Hanlon.



To: Road Walker who wrote (435752)11/19/2008 3:26:28 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575596
 
RW, > You implied that it was easy for AQ to do terrorist attacks in the US

Didn't have to be in the US. They could have blown something up in Malaysia, for example. Anything to make it onto CNN.

In any case, we can't conclude one way or the other that Al Qaeda wanted one of the candidates elected. Among other things, that implies a level of coherence, consistency, and competence that I don't believe Al Qaeda has these days.

Tenchusatsu


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News