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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (26986)	9/13/2001 4:34:39 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

And it was on the American mainland, not an overseas possession, as Hawaii then was. And it violated the capital of the United States. And mostly civilians were targeted. And the enemy has not owned up to it. And it is part of a stream of plots, usually foiled, to commit spectacular acts of terror on our soil.........

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (26986)	9/13/2001 4:36:31 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Did 100,000 Jews get killed at Auschwitz or 500,000? Does the exact number matter? Once you get past a certain point there is no point trying to figure out deeper implications or what kind of consensus can be reached. After the last living body is pulled out of the rubble it will be time to get busy, innocent blood demands it. I don't believe in killing them passionately, they're not worth it. I believe in doing it in a systematic fashion, like civilized people.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (26986)	9/13/2001 5:14:43 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Pardon me, but I fail to see the difference between these situations. I went back and read your posts on the Taliban and I think I have a better understanding now of the basis of your anger at Afghanistan. You are holding the Afghanistan accountable for the loss of life on Tuesday because the Taliban could have turned bin Laden over and didn't. Given that premise, I understand better why you're equating the two. In my mind, the terrorists and their network are the enemy. The Taliban is part of that network. The Taliban rules most of Afghanistan. It appears to me that they do so by force. I don't equate the Taliban and Afghanistan in quite the same way I equate the Nazis with Germany. While there were dissenters in Germany, the Nazi regime was integrated with the German people. In WWII, we were clearly at war with the country, Germany. I can't as easily see Afghanistan as the enemy, only the Taliban and bin Laden. If we can "get" the Taliban and bin Laden without wiping out Afghanistan, it seems to me that we should try. In WWII we would not have had the techniques to destroy the Nazis without a lot of collateral damage even if the Nazis were separable from the German people. We have better techniques now and we have a moral responsibility to use them to the extent that we can. As I recall, what attracted your ire was X's comments about the bombing of Kabul that first night. There were several posts here on SI announcing the news. I think that X overreacted to what turned out to be a false report. Had the report been true, though, she would have had a point. It would have been pointless for us to trash Kabul. It might have felt good to retaliate, but it would have hurt a lot of people who were not the enemy with little chance of hitting the enemy. And it would have shaped the development of a bunch of future martyrs. As some point in this war, it might be a good strategy to bomb Kabul as part of an overall campaign, but it wouldn't have been on Tuesday night. Seems to me that, whatever we do, it should be what's smart. Karen