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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (1395)	9/11/2001 4:40:01 PM
From: shadowman	Respond to of 36161

delete

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (1395)	9/11/2001 5:45:38 PM
From: t4texas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

you can be an apologist, but don't blame the usa for this george, you can be cuddly and apologize for yourself, but don't blame the usa for the terrorists. i ran across this reply (link below), and i thought parts of it fit against your comments. i am so glad that ronald reagan was at polar opposites from your opinion. Message 16332494

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (1395)	9/11/2001 11:41:42 PM
From: que seria	Respond to of 36161

OT George: I don't understand why your view of US foreign policy leads you to disagree with Slider, unless you think that the US conduct you describe justifies this terrorism. Say it ain't so. Slider's point was that we must pre-emptively nail the snakes in their dens before they slither in again to bite. Your point was that As long as the US seeks global domination, bullies weaker counties every day, and feels free to bomb anyone whenever our leaders feel like it, this problem will only escalate no matter what the response to this incident. So you're not surprised at this attack. Neither am I, for the same reason. But I don't think people on this thread are responding to your reasons why this shouldn't be a surprise. I think they're responding to your implication (tell me if I'm wrong to see it) that today's attacks on civilians are morally equivalent to what the US has done in Iraq. Is that what you are saying? I disagree with our government's Iraq policy, but I see no moral equivalence between the incidental (even if foreseeable) harm it has caused to civilians and the intended slaughter of innocents. Even if our ME policy has tilted toward Israel, the US has never invaded any nations there (other than in response to an invasion) or butchered our leader's political opponents, as Saddam and other Arab leaders have. We have supported Israel in our own interest and (I think) because we rightly fear that Arabs would seek to push Israel into the sea if we were not in the way. Saddam is an authentic monster; so are the scum who murdered our people today. Unless you are an apologist for the perpetrators of today's slaughter, how can you oppose Slider's point that the perpetrators must be eliminated?