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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (53851)	10/5/2001 11:44:28 AM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Mike, OT *** NYT opinion - clear thinking! October 5, 2001 FOREIGN AFFAIRS Yes, but What? By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN [excerpt] Join a Discussion on Thomas L. Friedman's Columns Judging from the foreign press, the most popular world reaction to the terrorist attacks on America has not been outright condemnation, but rather: "Yes, but . . ." Yes, this was terrible, but somehow America deserved it or is responsible for the anger behind it. One can only be amazed at the ease with which some people abroad and at campus teach-ins now tell us what motivated the terrorists. Guess what? The terrorists didn't leave an explanatory note. Because their deed was their note: We want to destroy America, starting with its military and financial centers. Which part of that sentence don't people understand? Have you ever seen Osama bin Laden say "I just want to see a smaller Israel in its pre-1967 borders," or "I have no problem with America, it just needs to have a lower cultural and military profile in the Muslim world"? These terrorists aren't out for a new kind of coexistence with us. They are out for our non-existence. None of this seems to have seeped into the "Yes, but . . ." crowd, whose most prominent "Yes, but" states: This terrorist act would never have happened if America hadn't been so supportive of Israel. My response is, "Yes, but . . . but . . ." [snip] nytimes.com