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 : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (27402)	9/14/2001 8:27:13 PM
From: Abner Hosmer	Respond to of 30051

George, I don't believe those men were "just the opposite". They sincerely believed they would be rewarded after their deaths, they knew they would be considered hero's by many, and they knew their deaths would be instantaneous and dramatic. That does not require courage. They also had the reward of glorying in the power of life and death which they held over their hostages, and the thousands in those buildings, and may have had the further pleasure of indulging their hatred in physical torture. What these men perpetrated did not even require physical bravery. Even if caught, they knew they faced at worst a comfy jail cell. American and allied servicemen and women who fall into the hands of the enemy will likely face a far worse fate. Personally, I don't consider myself physically brave. I am sure I would be extremely fearful going into combat, but to do what these men did would be easy. Contrary to what you imply, I am sure they found the whole experience exceedingly exhilarating.

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (27402)	9/14/2001 8:38:53 PM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

<ot>Hi George - on 2nd thought, I now understand why some people describe these fanatics and zealots cowards. It is possible that it stems from the [cultural] observation that they should have fought like a man, face to face, you know, gun battle at ok coral! More important, by any measurement, in most cultures, honorable people are those who fight with other combatants. Taking innocent people hostages, and worse killing innocent people, is indeed deemed by most people cowardly. Unfortunately, calling them this or that means little to them when their heart is cold, their soul dark and their mind twisted. So, from the utilitarian perspective, elimination is probably for the common good. The tricky thing is that in order not to be bring ourselves to their level, the civilized and uncowardly people will have the burden of going after them w/o hurting too many innocent people they are likely to use as human shield. I keep hearing some people in this thread talking about going after a whole country. The truth of the matter is that countries like Afghanstan have already had plenty of widows reverting to medieval existence. I read somewhere that 1MM of its population are in extreme starvation. Situations like this really makes one wonder if the good o assasination and mass media campaign a more enlightened [and effective] way to deal with dictators and mad leaders. best, Bosco

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (27402)	9/14/2001 8:57:49 PM
From: Amots	Respond to of 30051

George. Tell this fanatics that they will be burry in a Pig skin and you have a chance to stop some in the future. (In this case, no 70 virgins are waiting in heaven...)