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: thames_sider who wrote (29599)	9/26/2001 1:19:28 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

Do you support the use of force - GOING TO WAR - against one country by any other, when the first has an unfriendly regime and is probably sheltering someone possibly and allegedly responsible for terrorist acts? I would break this down in to three parts. My original post assumed part one and two were true. 1 - Did Al Qaida plan and commit the attacks? 2 - Does the Taliban shelter and support, and have an aliance with Al Qaida? 3 - Is it ok for a country to attack another country or elements within it when that country has attacked them or supports and defends and is allied with elements within the country that commited the attack and are planning other attacks? The answer to question 2 seems to be obvious, yes. The answer to question 3 is in my opinion yes. The question left if number 1. I assume that the answer there is yes as well, but you are of course free to challenge this assumption. BTW, the US harbours known and wanted terrorists against Western democracies and has refused to extradite them - even given warrants and proof. Fact. It's done so for IRA bombers in the 80's. Does the US allow them to plan and prepare terrorist attacks from US territory, with no effort to stop these attacks or arrest those responsible for them? I don't think the US government does this or has done it in the past but I'm willing to examine evidence that suggests otherwise. If the US actually has gone as far as allying itself with a terrorist organization that commits large scale attacks, then I think military operations by other countries within the US would be morally justified. Practically they would be idiotic and disastrous but there would be nothing wrong with them in principle. Oh, right. So there's a minimum death quota now before you can act against terrorists? No exact quota or hard line but the worse the death toll the greater the justified reaction. Tim