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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: joseph krinsky who wrote (2442)	9/15/2001 4:42:18 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

I think it can be articulated differently: 1) Americans are united against murderers. We believe most people in all nations are, also. 2) Murder of innocents as collateral damage during attacks on military targets is regrettable but often unavoidable. 3) Targets of civilians who are not involved in acts of aggression and assault are never defensible. 4) It is understood that all governments are guilty of hurting innocents. 5) It is understood that governed populations usually lack the means to prevent their own governments from such actions. 6) It is understood that sanctioned, official, or bland mass media outlets do not provide complete pictures of the truth, so many citizens can remain ignorant of the whole truth. 7) We bemoan these facts as they exist in our country and others, because it limits the potential for honest responses of humans engaged in interaction with humans of other nations. 8) Some people will exploit these artificial divisions for their own gain. Among these are folks who fundraise after denouncing someone they'd like to convince us to hate. 9) We've seen these exploiters among Christians, Muslims, Jews and others, as well as among capitalists, communists, fascists, royalists, and more. They stand to gain by defining an enemy instead of engaging different populations in conversations that can build a better world instead of destroying. 10) While we remain steadfast in opposition to murderers, we pledge to the common people of all nations to begin these dialogues, to see what our common humanity can achieve. 11) Because this undercuts the power and fundraising of exploiters and governments, we expect to see them try and sabotage these efforts. We will try to vigilantly root out and expose such efforts. 12) We believe the safety and well-being of the common people of all nations can be greater if you'll join us in this formidable task. 13) It has to begin somewhere; where should it happen? 14) It has to begin sometime; why not now? To me, unity against murdering criminals can be achieved, without lockstep agreement on free speech limits. What is gained by limiting the potential of truth... to put on a good show? Limits on freedom do not convince terrorists or outsiders; they produce choreographed pictures common to cheerleaders, tailgate parties, lynchmobs and goosesteppers. They reassure the mob that we're all doing the right thing, but unanimity does not equal truth or rightness. What I love most in America is the capacity to create and invent, based upon the dream of something better. Engaging in a dialogue that might build a greater world for all is not just a great creative challenge, but is patriotically permissible and may be the highest duty before us. Or am I just smoking the good stuff again? Your thoughts?