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: Neocon who wrote (37618)	11/20/2001 8:04:56 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"...defenseless civilians, particularly women and children." You must not have been around yesterday. Issue has been taken with equating women to things that don't apply to all others. It was termed "so last century" or something like that. Personally I think the terminology is fine but...well...its not hip to do that y'know.

To: Neocon who wrote (37618)	11/20/2001 8:06:46 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Coward. Definitely a coward. JLA

To: Neocon who wrote (37618)	11/20/2001 8:06:55 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The presumption is that terrorists, like bullies, will not only seek a tactical advantage, which is merely prudent, but will solely pick on easy targets, and will cut and run if credibly challenged. Whether or not the paradigm is correct, surely there is plausibility to it: what kind of person deliberately blows up a school bus, for example? Any decent person would rather put himself in harm's way, by mounting an attack on a military target, than sink so low. Good argument, but against terrorism rather than calling terrorism cowardly per se. Blowing up a school bus is particularly revolting, but not in itself a 'cowardly' act. In the terrorist eyes, it's prudent and accurate: it causes maximum horror and grief, while minimising risk... It's this rationale that leads the IRA to leave bombs outside military barracks or in popular pubs in army towns in the UK, rather than put on clear uniforms and try storming the barracks directly. It's nauseating, calculated murder. But it isn't precisely cowardly. Reprisals in some form are still rather likely - do you believe that al-Quaida didn't expect the US to come in and hit Afghanistan, and hard? The 'cowardly' side of terrorism, IMO, is discreetly funding and aiding them, or supplying them, while staying quiet about your actions... or apologising for their actions while doing nothing about them.

To: Neocon who wrote (37618)	11/20/2001 11:45:05 AM
From: Kevin McKenzie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Neocon, As always, you're quite elequent. But it seems to me that this type of over-analysis and microscopic intelectualizing is irrelevant. Bin Laden is a mass-murderer. Whether his actions were or were not in some way, by some standard, heroic, is laughably unimportant. A man who slaughters infants can claim he did it to preserve their innocence and save them from a life of misery. Maybe he's right, maybe he's "brave" because he knows the eventual consequence of that action. He's still a barbaric murderer. Addendum: I just noticed this line of discussion is in the "Beanie Babies Collector's Forum" Bizare.