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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lou Weed who wrote (272087)	12/20/2009 12:58:16 PM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

On 9/11, had they attacked the WTC towers one hour later, they would have killed up to 25,000 Americans. Would that have been enough of a "reality slap" to get your attention? Is that enough "murder" for you? And like I stated to GR, the Japanese only killed a few thousand Americans and sank a few Battleships of relatively replaceable value. So using your BS logic, that obviously doesn't rise to the level of declaring war either. So.. what's your point? Are you saying that we should just acknowledge that a certain number of murders should be construed as "acceptable losses" and therefore disband our police forces and judicial courts? Should we wait until so many murders take place before we actually direct our detectives and police to actually take action to investigate and arrest the perpetrators? What is your threshold for "unacceptable murders"? The purpose of defending this country is to prevent even ONE American from becoming the victim of foreign aggression. We'll never achieve that goal, but it the implicit threat that keeps other governments from abusing our citizens or threatening our country. It's the same reason we, supposedly, don't tolerate deliberate murder within our society. We don't even tolerate manslaughter, or negligent homicide. If I threaten to kill you, whether verbally, or in writing, it can be construed as assault. Or if you are foolish enough to threaten the President, you're going to find some heavily armed Secret Service agents showing up on your doorstep looking to put the "habeus grabbus" on you. definitions.uslegal.com So why do we tolerate EVEN ONE militant fanatic, religious or secular, threatening this country with violence and conquest. If they want to declare way upon us, then let their words stand for something and let them suffer the consequences. Each of those persons who have threatened to use violence against the US or its citizens has created the legitimacy that authorizes US entities to neutralize that threat. I don't know why I have to wait until they physically carry out that threat and cost the lives of innocent people. So come on now Slarty.. I could destroy such BS logic like yours in my sleep. You can do better. Hawk