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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (35058)	7/26/2002 4:07:12 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There you go again, Nadine, questioning the limitations of international law while the sovereign state of Israel was borne, and is living proof, from the legitimacy of the beast you so criticize. Now, that is irony. I have noticed when arguments relating to Israel (or any sensitive subject, for that matter) are at an impasse, authors tend to break the stalemate by reverting to charges of race, guilt, or character in an attempt to discredit an opponent's opinion. We all know this is the oldest trick in the book as it plays at our deepest seeded emotions in the amygdala. Let's just agree to disagree on this, and I hope you have a nice weekend. <smile>

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (35058)	7/28/2002 12:03:52 PM
From: boris_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

how to take these proponents of international law. They speak so seriously, one would suppose that international law really existed ... Their overall message arrives curiously divorced from reality Let's replace "international law" with "civil rights" or "democracy" and this sentence could have been expressed by a French aristocrat of the "Ancien Régime" (say: around 1790). Boris