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 (144964)	4/14/2002 3:30:27 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572643

Ted, It seems that your point is that terrorism is what everyone calls terrorism + everything that's worse than terrorism. Suppose you take the same definition to something that we can call "annoyance", like humid weather. If we take your definition and annoyance is what everyone else perceives as annoyance + everything worse, than you can say that genocide is annoyance. I don't think it makes sense use words in such an ill-defined way. I think annoyance is one thing, terror is something else, different, much stronger than annoyance. Same with genocide. It is something different than terror. Joe

To: tejek who wrote (144964)	4/14/2002 7:26:54 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572643

>Ten, the people didn't know they were to be killed until near the end, but yet they were terrorized by troops coming into their homes, ransacking their houses, stealing their valuables, forcing them to march to the local train station, and then herding onto train cars.........or do you doubt that these people were in terror? Genocide was the final act, or Hitler's final solution but it was terrorism that got the Jews to those camps. It was terrorism that kept some Germans from objecting. You may think that the impact of the horror and terror that went on in Nazi Germany was somehow not as bad as 9/11 and so can't be called terrorism, but I beg to differ.......in some ways it was worse; to not know your fate but to be treated like vermin 24/7 and terrorized for years. This terribly inane game of semantics has to end. It has no point, I think that I and Tench and Albert and others have made our definition of terrorism plenty clear and it's all getting stupid. >I don't think either Arafat or Sharon will stop this game of chicken. I don't understand what game of chicken you're referring to. -Z

To: tejek who wrote (144964)	4/14/2002 11:10:13 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572643

Ted, these are the language games that liberals are so fond of playing. Count me out. Terrorism is terrorism, and genocide is genocide. And I'm not going into any more detail because you should know very well what the difference is. Tenchusatsu

To: tejek who wrote (144964)	4/16/2002 1:11:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572643

t was terrorism that kept some Germans from objecting. You may think that the impact of the horror and terror that went on in Nazi Germany was somehow not as bad as 9/11 and so can't be called terrorism, but I beg to differ... I don't think that is his point at all. He's not saying it isn't as bad as terrorism, it just is not terrorism. If the moon somehow dropped out of orbit, and hit the earth shattering the planet and wiping out all life on earth that would be worse then terrorism but it wouldn't be terrorism. I would define terrorism as attacks intentionally targeted at civilians for the purpose of supporting a cause. By that definition the fire bombing of Dresden could be called terrorism, but the bombing of Afghanistan was not terrorism. Tim