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: thames_sider who wrote (12456)	5/8/2002 11:24:28 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I cannot answer for the apparent inclusion of the Times in the left- liberal column, although the fact that Murdoch publishes it is neither here nor there. Ted Turner was still a libertarian/conservative type when CNN was rife with liberal bias. Eventually, of course, Turner changed his own views. All cases that are vaguely similar are not similar in every respect. For example, with the IRA, how often did it bomb civilian targets? How often did it do so without warning? How often were children among the targets? How often did bombings occur in Britain? Does the IRA claim Great Britain, or articulate the goal of driving the English, Welsh, and Scots into the sea? How many states back the IRA explicitly? (Even Ireland officially condemns it). How likely is it that the IRA is seeking weapons of mass destruction. If there were armories in Armagh, was there armed resistance preventing British troops from safely entering the town? Did the IRA blow up some of the caches? And, in any event, are there not reasonable disagreements in tactics, depending upon various calculations, like the level of tolerance of the populace for tepid action? (By the way, Amman is the precise analogy. It is the capital of the Arab portion of the partition of Palestine, an independent country (Jordan), and full of Palestinians. The sloppy journalistic standards and eagerness to publish dirt on Israel are prima facie evidences of bias, and most UK papers were forced to retract their accounts of Jenin. Plus, the use of inflammatory language and failure to even notice the Israeli accounts pretty much nail the case. What is the nature of the bias? I do not think it is holding Israel to civilized standards. No state can tolerate frequent suicide bombings in dense population centers without taking forceful actions to uproot the perpetrators. They could have simply bombed Jenin, instead of making house to house searches, for example. And if they wanted to simply engage in ethnic cleansing, they have been handed plenty of reason for wholesale retaliation until the Palestians flee. Israel is being restrained, given the provocation, and the prospect of some group like Hamas eventually obtaining weapons of mass destruction, like biological agents.......