SI
SI
discoversearch

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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (65954)9/17/2002 10:09:49 AM
From: michael97123  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
Sarmad,
If i believed that there would 100,000 + killed in a US attack, i would reconsider my views. Would you reconsider if it could be guaranteed that there would be less than 10,000? I dont want to turn the debate into an amoral discussion of casualties but i think you need to deal with this issue to make more sense of your position. mike



To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (65954)9/17/2002 10:21:52 AM
From: Dale Knipschield  Respond to of 70976
 
>Why the h___ do you assume ? You're wrong again.<

I assume because you don't make yourself very clear. You infer as many things by what you don't say as by what you do say.

As for being wrong.......well, I have no problem with that.......wasn't the first time.......won't be the last.

Regards,

Knip



To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (65954)9/17/2002 1:24:57 PM
From: Pink Minion  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
>> And you can for sure assume that casually killing people by dropping bombs on them is not a desirable goal.

At least it's not terrorism. That's only when the other side does it.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News