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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tekboy who wrote (32686)	6/19/2002 8:22:35 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

no one has commented on the Grenville Byford piece.. "The Wrong War" by Grenville Byford Most of the article consists of "Proving" that we can't define terrorism on an absolute basis, and that we will work to our own best interest by not using the term. I kind of feel about defining "Terrorists" like the Judges in the '30s felt about Pornography. "I know it when I see it." . The "moral clarity" in the rhetoric of the "war on terrorism" is more apparent than real. It takes a one-dimensional view of a multidimensional problem, and the sooner that rhetoric is retired the better. Interests first, ends second, means third -- this is how America thinks. It should be how it talks as well. Bush has already got in enough trouble with his "axis of evil" speech. If he got away from talking about "Terrorists" he would really catch hell. This piece comes across to me as a "Think Tank" presentation. Nice exposition for the Chattering Classes, but does not correspond to reality.