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 (145222)	4/16/2002 6:31:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572777

Let me ask a question in the hopst it will settle the issue. Do you think it makes a big difference the intent of the two bombings in the level of terror felt by the affected civilians? That depends on how well the people subject to the bombing understand what is going on. In any case the amount of terror it causes is irrelevant. Lots of things can be terrifying but only a few of them are terrorism. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (145222)	4/19/2002 12:19:35 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572777

Ted, I the example which Tim posted: If I am driving in a legal and reasonably safe manner, and then someone jumps out from behind a bush and I hit them and they die it is an accident. If someone walks down the street and I aim my car at them and run them over and they die, it is murder. The distinction in my earlier statement is almost exactly the same as the distinction between the car accident and the vehicular homicide. is perfect, and I hoped that it would help you out of your confusion. But if you don't see a difference between intended killing then lets just agree to disagree. There is no common ground. I understand your concern with intent. However an important part of terror is that the recipient has no idea when the action will end and if they will live through it. I contend that that is far more important in creating the feelings of terror than the intent of the perpetrator. Terror is not only about the victim, it is as much, or more about feelings of others as a response to the act of terror. For example, the dead Jews, the victims of the homicide bombings, their feelings not really relevant, because they are dead. It is about how the Israelis, who were not the targets feel. The intend is really the overriding principle, not how the direct victim feels. Because intent of the perpetrator is what has a potential to create terror. Another example, very mild compare to what's going on in Israel: There was this freak in NY/NJ area, who for no reason mowed down pedestrians on several occasions. While he was on the loose, there was some apprehension about cars on the roads acting weirdly. But this person killed only a few people, a fraction of the number of pedestrian fatalities in the states on NY and NJ. There are numerous accidents that kill pedestrians, but there is no feeling of terror among pedestrians, but one person with intention to kill pedestrians did create some sense of terror. Joe