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 (37614)	11/20/2001 10:31:07 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I do not consider it accurate to describe OBL as a commander in war, I think the Charles Manson comparison is much more appropriate (though perhaps at a different scale). There are a number of things that OBL could have done that would make his approach something different than a cowardly act. I still like analogies, so..... Situation: Same mugger/robber with a gun or knife, sees a few targets on the street, 1. An Adult Male 2. 90 year old woman 3. Six year old boy. If the mugger/robber selects either the 90 year old woman or the six year old boy, I would classify him as a coward. An adult male I would not. If he choses either the 90 year old woman or the six year old boy instead of the adult male, he is doing it to avoid the danger inherent in robbing someone. It is the selection of a defenseless target up front that makes it an act of cowardice. Steven Rogers pointed out that the US civilians weren't defenseless since they have the most elaborate military and intelligence complex behind them. In the above analogy, if the six year old boy has a huge dad who is an NRA member but is at home while his son is walking to school, you have essentially the same situation. The selection of the defenseless targets (especially having someone else doing the work), is not only running in face of danger, but running before the danger even shows its face. In my analogy above, would you consider the robber a coward for chosing a small child or an old woman instead of an adult male? Or would you just consider it damn smart use of resources? And no, I don't consider our current military action an act of cowardice. We warned them that we were coming, we declared war (if not formal, certainly in a meaningful way to Afghanistan), we aimed for non-civilian targets and the fact is, it is in retaliation rather than initiation. I would put our action in the category of the six year old's Dad hunting down the robber and taking him by surprise and beating the shit out of him. But any one of the things I mention (warning, declaration, non civilian targets and retaliation rather than inition) changes the circumstances.