Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (67525)	9/6/2004 5:35:16 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 793916

To get the other foot out of the box you have to flip the scenario and imagine yourself an American terrorist or a Christian terrorist fighting off some enemy that has left you "similarly aggrieved." Very good point. I thought of it myself after I hit the "submit" button. And the answer is, your hypothetical and your analogy are not representative of the facts. The Palestinians have a lot more to blame for their problems than whatever the Israelis have done. To make it accurate, you would have to add that Farrakhan was somehow elected president, stole 90% of the American government's budget, and has adamantly refused to make peace with anyone. Given those conditions, terrorism would not be a rational alternative. I'd first assassinate Farrakhan, then make peace on the best terms possible. However, using your hypothet, which I believe is flawed, I would nonetheless think the first thing to do would be to replace American leadership, then sue for peace. Under the circumstances you present, terrorism would not work. There would have to be a better way. But don't get me wrong, there are definitely some conceivable circumstances I can see in which I might approve of what we call terror.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next