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 : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (9276)	11/25/2001 11:47:58 PM
From: deibutfeif	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

re:...Chomsky's still going strong... Yep, notice how that article repeated refers to "Prof. Chomsky" or "US scholar Chomsky", without mentioning that he's of Professor of Linguistics, as opposed to anything relevant. I don't mind someone expressing opinions, even stupid ones like Chomsky's, but to do it as if from an implied position of expertise when he is in fact just another Joe Blow... By the way, thought it was an appropriate ratio in the recent Taliban POW riot: 300-400 dead Taliban vs 1 dead American soldier. Now we just need to make for all the Sep 11 victims at the same rate.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (9276)	11/27/2001 7:53:10 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 23908

Chomsky is wrong. "If captured alive it will be difficult for America to try Osama in a court of law and that is why it considers it better to kill him," It wouldn't matter if the court was a military tribunal or an ordinary courtroom. I can't imagine an American jury, more specifically a New York jury since that's where the worst attack took place, NOT convicting Osama. Osama had already been indicted for prior terrorist attacks on 9/11. Other members of al Qaida have previously been convicted in American courts. Osama wouldn't stand a chance in an American courtroom.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (9276)	11/27/2001 8:17:17 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23908

For a linguist he seems to be talking strange here - his choice of words make him sound like a non-native English speaker: ...desiring that Islamabad must stop support to violence in the held Kashmir," Support "to violence" instead of "of violence"? And "the held Kashmir"? "Yes, Afghans had the right to defend the USSR invasion ..." Makes it sound like Afghans were defending the invasion - instead of defending against it. At least he used the correct word - invasion. US invaded Panama using this time not to defend the country against "Moscow but against Spanish drug lords". Shouldn't that be Colombian drug lords? And what's with "using this time"? "They do respond to public voice, but as they defend the power, it happens occasionally," Huh? "The West want subordinate system no matter it is being run by military dictator," You'd expect a MIT professor in linguistics to have a better command of English grammar. Perhaps he's getting senile.