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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ga Bard who wrote (184193)	9/20/2001 4:04:04 PM
From: Mr. Whist	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "Any speech that does not support the campaign against terrorism to be is traitorous." The right-wing military, Tricky Dicky and his merry pranksters said the same thing during the Vietnam War three decades ago: "Those who aren't with us are traitors." Then we found out that the bastards were lying to us for years as the body bags kept coming home occupied. Just a few months ago Robert McNamara even apologized to the American people for lying to cover up what was really going on in Vietnam. No, in time of war, we always need a skeptical minority asking tough questions and making our leaders accountable.

To: Ga Bard who wrote (184193)	9/20/2001 5:19:36 PM
From: ThirdEye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Any speech that does not support the campaign against terrorism to be is traitorous. There seem to be so many on this thread who throw around the word "traitor" that I have to wonder how it got to be so easy to suspend one's critical faculties. Maybe that's not what's really occurring. Maybe most here are simply suspending judgment of the the administration's action until they see something they don't agree with. I would hope at least that is true. But in the meantime there's so much that is unclear about what exactly is going to be considered "terrorism," "support," "harboring," what methods we are going to employ, how much "collateral" damage is too much, where the line would be drawn on hedging our rights or personal liberties for the sake of unity. All of that has yet to be defined. And if you don't have these questions in your mind then you truly have lost some faculties, or never had them. So anyone who asks these questions now or even tries to answer them out loud if only to be comforting themselves in the dark is not a traitor. Attacking a Muslim because they are Muslim, now that would truly be giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The rest of what you might consider traitorous behavior is simply premature expression of what is most likely to begin soon anyway.