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.

Technology Stocks : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Piotr Koziol who wrote (97093)	4/11/2002 4:52:37 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 97611

I don't like the terrorist analogy, but agree with the sentiment. I don't believe terrorists are freedom fighters. Ever. The difference? Terrorists target citizens and general populace. Freedom fighters target military, political, and state institutions. The IRA was, technically, a freedom fighting group that made a wrong turn and became terrorists. Islamic Jihad and Hamas? Terrorists. A cause doesn't justify the method. There is a difference between targeting military sites and having civilians killed. It's called collateral damage. It's a sorry event. Nobody wants it. For terrorists to justify their behavior, they marginalize the intent that caused the collateral damage, and say the collateral damage was the goal. This allows them to justify killing civilians. It is wrong and unsupportable. Terrorists target civilians for 2 reasons: they are cowards (I don't consider suicide a brave thing, as you have only one solution and choice, thereby making choices irrelevant. Bravery means facing choices), and they don't have the means, or the gonads, to stand up to military force. Killing civilians is easy and requires little loss on your part versus large losses on the part of the victim. Arabs think their suicide bombers are brave. I think they are chickenshit.