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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (144178)	4/8/2002 5:19:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578339

Tim, oh I see. Its guerrilla warfare when you take out civilians by accident and is a good thing; and terrorism when you kill civilians intentionally, and a bad thing. Conventional warfare also kills civilians. Police kill civilians accidently from time to time. Not all types of violence or war are terrorism. Do you think that our bombing Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan is terrorism because some civilians got killed? Killing civilians is not a good thing, but if the war itself is fought for good and important reasons, and if great care is taken to avoid killing civilians then it makes no sense to say that accidently killing a few civilians is morally equivilent to terrorism. You didn't outright say that but you are implying it and I think the implication is wrong. Do you think the choice of terms matter to either civilian who is dead? If your dead, your dead. But murder is different from accidental death, the way terrorism is differnt that accidental deaths caused by conventional or guerilla forces who are trying to avoid civilian deaths. If while I was driving on a mountain road by brakes went out and I ran into someone close to you accidently killing them would you call me a murderer? Would you feel as bad about or angry towards me as if I had went to their house and killed them with a shotgun? Tim