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: combjelly who wrote (147324)	5/20/2002 3:18:50 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 1585817

comjelly re: while Arafat may not have a lot of control over the bombers these days why would you say that? Did Arafat do anything in the last 18 months to discourage terrorist attacks? But he did everything in his power to encourage the attacks. He has, more likely than not, sufficient power to stop almost all terrorist attacks and possibly even all of them. Strangely enough if he would stop terrorist attacks he would likely to loose Ted's and European support because he would actually have to learn in peace and compete in economy rather than blowing up children. -Albert

To: combjelly who wrote (147324)	5/20/2002 3:38:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1585817

"I thought the Japanese had gotten preferential treatment as in the case of the fire bombing of Tokyo." Dresden was firebombed first. Tokyo was firebombed because it was felt to be the most effective, and, as you note, it was quite effective as far as killing people. On the other hand, strategic bombing has poor record as far as actual effectiveness in breaking a country's will to fight. Usually, it has the opposite effect. I think that the Tokyo bombing weakened the morale of the Japanese, but the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were so shocking to the Japanese in the degree of their devastation that all desires to fight were neutralized. BTW I had forgotten that Dresden had been fire bombed. I knew, however, that fire bombing had not been used on Berlin. "If you still think Arafat is the primary cause, then it is a trick question." Well, I have little first hand knowledge. But, there was one guy on NPR who detail his efforts on starting up a business in Palestine. He had some Arab backers and the only problem was that Arafat kept throwing up various roadblocks. I think that Arafat is an incompetent leader and that he operates his fiefdom, well, much like a fiefdom. I believe the sooner he is gone the better. However, I don't believe that his capabilities as a leader have been the deciding factor in the condition of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. In fact, I think its a mistake to put a lot of the blame on him. I think he's one of those types who has taken advantage of a bad situation........a situation that would have existed whether he was there or not. Further, I think the factors contributing to this mess are much bigger than Arafat, and have accumulated over time to the point where it takes little to make them explode.....obviously. Finally, they gave up. I suspect that a recent factor is that there aren't a lot of assurances that someone won't show up to work packing more than a lunch, just because there is a Western connection to the business. And while Arafat may not have a lot of control over the bombers these days, have you seen where Hamas made an offer to Israel to stop the bombing?, he certainly is responsible for it getting to that point. I am not sure what you intended in your last sentence. However, the leader of Hamas has offered to stop the bombings as soon as Israel vacates the WB and Gaza. Of course, Israel has said they will not vacate either until the suicide bombings stop. A stalemate........like everything else in this conflict. And if you think Arafat is something to worry about, you ain't seen nothing until you've seen Sheik Ammin. He makes Arafat look like a altar boy. ted