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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: diana g who wrote (10513)	11/14/2001 12:44:55 PM
From: The Ox	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Your scenario only plays out if we go backwards and return to an isolationist foreign policy which abandons the Afghani's. The reason this type of situation didn't occur in Japan, Italy and Germany was the enormous commitment to rebuilding these countries with a focus that changed the fundamental political views of the local populations. A Marshall Plan for Afghanistan is a must. If we empower the locals to create humane laws and also create a justice system to effectively enforce these laws, then the few psycopaths who won't come to terms with the "new paradigm" will find it much more difficult to plant and harvest the seeds of terrorism. It's like clearing a field of weeds. If the ground is left unattended, more weeds will grow. If the proper care and materials are used, then whatever is planted should be able to grow into a bountiful harvest.

To: diana g who wrote (10513)	11/14/2001 2:48:15 PM
From: diana g	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 23153

<<OT>> I am against a 'Let Bygones Be Bygones' approach to people who advocate & practice terrorism. I fail to understand how my statements on this have been interpreted as meaning that I am in favor of the killing of babies or general destruction of various foreign populations. I am in favor of killing the Islamic extremists who have used terrorism & will again if given the opportunity. If they should choose to surrender that would not change my opinion that they should be killed since the surrender would likely be a tactical decision based on the situation in which they found themselves at that time. I think it a safe assumption that they would resume their former terrorist activities when possible. This likelyhood of future resumption of terroristic hostilities (based on deeply held convictions, btw) distinguishes them from most soldiers, including the vast majority of those on all sides in Afghanistan. To be as clear as possible here --- I am talking about killing those who practice and support and advocate terrorism. NOT babies or rug merchants in the marketplace or farmers or the conscripted soldiers on any side or anyone else who is unfortunately in a place near a terrorist or who happens to be Islamic. ---I say 'Kill the people who practice, support & advocate terrorism. Just them. All of them. Be willing to go to great trouble & great expense to hunt them & kill them.' The thing is, it's True that being capable of forgiving one's enemies is a good thing, imho. But you have to make practical decisions about it. ---Forgiving people who formerly hated you & wanted you dead but now want to live in peace is fine. Let's get all the peace we practically can get. ---You can even forgive people who currently hate you & may try to kill you. You don't have to hate them back. You can understand & forgive them. You can love them if you want. But you have to kill them. ----d