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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (2529)	3/13/2002 6:48:20 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I agree with you (B) makes more sense if we are just announcing our intentions to curtail any perilous threats where ever they be and in what ever form they be. (A) makes more sense if we have defined Terrorism as a black-hearted evil (which we have) and we can identify those specific groups who are its purveyors. So if we are talking about a specific network of participants in terror, labeling them evil seems appropriate. If you are living in Iran and you know the leadership is defining your country's role in a way that is deserving of this label...revolution time. "I don't think the hearts of the perpetrators are any of our business as long as they don't attack us." If there is evidence of intent, there is sufficient cause to slap label (A) on them. Is there evidence? Bush says there is.