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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (131632)	9/20/2001 5:46:06 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

>>it does not qualify as terrorism or "deliberately killing innocent civilians".<< to you. and me. but not to the people bombed. think about it for a moment.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (131632)	9/20/2001 5:53:02 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>> If we use our influence over the Israelis or Palestinians in an attempt to change their policies or actions, then yes, it is. You should really look these words up before you start using them so much << you originally said "an attempt to broker peace", which on it's face doesn't imply influence over anyone. now you are suggesting we somehow use "influence over". i think you should be able to use those fancy degrees from those fancy schools you attended to comprehend the subtle difference. >> Well, sometimes I have to pull you back from the tangents you head off on after twisting other people's words. << it has nothing to do with tangents on my part. i cited specific examples where i think our government has committed acts of terrorism, and instead of challenging the point you attempt to change the subject and propose any number of other situations where we may very well have not committed an act of terrorism. >> Your terms, then? You've mentioned the Chinese Embassy, though the Clinton administration said it was an accident and took full responsibility for it. << like i said, our government lies. if in our debates we must accept what the government tells us as the gospel truth, then we will make no headway. because one of my main points is that the government uses propaganda and lies to further it's goals and cover up it's atrocious conduct. >> Though I harbor no admiration for Clinton, I can't imagine that he would "deliberately" (your word) target it << of course you can't. that's because you have been brainwashed from propaganda by the media and our government. do you think our government would kill innocent people and then fess up to it? how would that be in their best interest? >> In any case, that does not qualify as "terrorism". << why not? deliberately killing civilians is not terrorism? is it not a war crime? >> Since you don't want to answer my questions about Kuwait or South Africa, what else have you got? << like i said, you want to avoid the accusation i have made and change the subject to some other topic where you feel more comfortable defending your position. i have made a specific allegation about our government knowingly and willingly slaughtering innocent people, in an effort to support my argument. don't change the subject, either counteract my argument in some way or accept that you cannot defend atrocities committed by our government. trying to point out some unrelated example and saying that is not terrorism doesn't negate my original accusation or accomplish anything now does it? we can find countless examples where the u.s. government has NOT committed acts of terrorism, so why focus on those? let's focus on the very specific allegations i have presented. >> Baby formula factories in Iraq? Assuming you didn't make that up, I would guess that either 1) Saddam lied about what it was, 2) it was unintended (collateral) damage in a war, or 3) it was targeted based on faulty intelligence data that indicated it to be a valid war target. In any of those cases, it does not qualify as terrorism or "deliberately killing innocent civilians". << if you are going to use unintended damage or stupidity as a defense by the actions of our government, then it would be nearly impossible to prove my point. stupidity or "whoops!" is not a defense. of course our government and nato love to champion how accurate and effective their laser guided bombs are until it comes time to defend their deliberate actions. then all of a sudden it's a case of that missle went astray or we had some old maps we were using for targets. the evidence is overwhelming even in the face of those pathetic excuses. if you are willing to accept that if it can be proven that we (nato/us) deliberately bombed the chinese embassy in belgrade killing three innocent civilians, and that is proof that our govt commits war crimes or acts of terrorism itself, then i will lay out my case. but somehow i think you would make me go through the whole exercise of proving it and then you would just reject it and say that it means nothing or proves nothing.