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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: aladin who wrote (67416)9/6/2004 8:26:30 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 793846
 
If they are bombing Cleveland - I might bomb one of their cities - it would depend on the circumstances.

Lord love a duck! I do so regret having brought up this hypothetical. Hypotheticals just don't work in this venue and I should know by now better than to try.

attacking members of the occupying force is not terrorism (its warfare), but attacking their civilians is

Yes, attacking the civilians of an enemy force occupying the US is terrorism. That premise was the basis for the hypothetical. The question has been not whether it is, indeed, terrorism but whether that particular variety of terrorism is unacceptable. Can we Americans condone terrorism against the enemy civilians who are occupying Cleveland and the rest of our country in the process of putting the US out of business?

I submit that we can. Still not certain of where you stand. <g>

(heck your female relatives might be in harems)

Good grief! If you want to further confuse the question posed by the hypothetical by adding captive US citizens to the mix of people on the busses we're considering bombing, you're on your own. <g>

(but let me ask this - was it ok to kill Nazi's?)

Are you trying to differentiate Nazi soldiers, Nazi civilians, and Germans or is that a rhetorical question?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext