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: combjelly who wrote (533007)	11/27/2009 11:54:01 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574734

>>>But it takes an awful lot of twisting to decide we are at war with an organization. The first twist was when AQ declared war on the United States. The second twist was when they undertook a series of attacks against the United States, which includes but is not limited to 911. How could we NOT be at war with AQ after they planned and executed kamakaze attacks killing 3,000 Americans in the process including attacks against our Navy? This just sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me.

To: combjelly who wrote (533007)	12/3/2009 8:18:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574734

But it takes an awful lot of twisting to decide we are at war with an organization. No it doesn't. It doesn't take any twisting at all. A government is just a (usually) larger, and more recognized organization. Some organizations are more of a threat (even just in terms of capabilities, and not considering their inclinations) than some organizations. War is used metaphorically, like "war on drugs", "war on poverty" etc., but the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban isn't metaphorical (even though the "war on terror" label is a pretty bad one, and in a sense metaphorical since we aren't really at war against a technique or type of activity).