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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (1216)	1/13/2003 1:31:26 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

This crucial legal distinction means that there is no legitimate basis for the trendy comparison between Iraqi and Israeli compliance, or lack of thereof, with U.N. resolutions. It means no such thing. The U.S. routinely vetoes Security Council resolutions that are unfavorable to Israel. The U.S. does not veto anti-Iraq resolutions. That is the difference. . it does appear that there is a potential link between nichols and mcveigh and the possiblity that they were aided and abetted by iraqis and other ME terrorist operatives. As Bush & Co. are frantically looking for any possible excuse to go to war with Iraq, including fabricated links between Saddam and Osama, you tell me they have overlooked this one right under their noses? LOL! Tom

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (1216)	1/13/2003 1:38:49 PM
From: Mao II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Would you please relate your views to U.S. involvement with Ariel Sharon; in particular I'd like to here your take on on Sharon's actions at Sabra and Shatila in 1982. Thanks in advance. M2

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (1216)	1/13/2003 1:52:30 PM
From: zonder	Respond to of 25898

>>Everything is limited to some extent by laws and international treaties<< so your answer is that there SHOULD be a statute of limitations on the investigation and prosecution of terrorist acts? that tells me what i need to know about your worldview. Can you not understand what I am saying? I am not talking about a time limit. I am saying that there are laws and treaties that specify how SUSPECTS are to be treated. (Assuming, of course, you realize that the detainees are suspects) I am saying that "we are now fighting terrorism, so no more laws because they would restrict us" is a PATHETIC destruction of the VERY LAWS and the western culture and order that we are trying to fight for. Do you understand this? That our culture and laws which say, among other things, that suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that they cannot be executed without a trial are what we are fighting for? If that tells you something about my world view, it should be that I am a true defender of the SECULAR western world where prosecutions follow LAW, rather than your administration that sinks lower and lower into the RELIGIOUS rhetoric of "They are evil, we are good" etc whereby international treaties are completely disregarded, hundreds of people are detained with no hope of a "competent tribunal" as defined by the Geneva Convention to determine their POW status, and an invasion about to be launched on a country that has done nothing hostile in the past DECADE on the grounds that its leader is "evil". For crying out loud. Sorry if my "world view" is not compatible with yours... in the united states we have no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. Good for you. Again, statute of limitations refer to a time limit and I was never talking about a time limit. you also seem to have little discernment between standards of democracy and the "standards" of a dictatorship Oh yeah? How so? By defending the Geneva Convention which, incidentally, the US signed? you and tariq aziz would be in total agreement, i see.. That is a very cheap shot, which also proves you "see" very little. So whoever does not agree with the Bush administration in how to handle our current predicament is in agreement with Tariq Aziz? I feel we are not far from the point where you will also call me "Anti-American" <g> of course we all know what happens to those cast a vote "against saddam". Not that it has any relevance to our subject here, of course... it does appear that there is a possibility that they were aided and abetted by iraqis and other ME terrorist operatives. So, let's have a tribunal to rule on what the evidence points to. i am interested in the facts of this case and wish to see this investigation continue no matter where it leads Good. Hold that thought.