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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (4604)	2/24/2003 6:19:09 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15987

OH PLEASE! Israel says Sharon was responsible. He was made to resign on that, for crying out loud. Now who's getting excited?? :0) Sharon was found "indirectly responsible" because they claimed he did not move to prevent the massacrews. There was no evidence presented that he ordered them.. And that suggests to me that there was extreme political pressure to remove Sharon because he had become an embarassment for a bogged down Israel incursion I can show you plenty of instances where people are "indirectly responsible" for actions that others have taken.. The captain of the USS Cole should be "indirectly responsible" for permitting an unknown boat to approach closely enough to explode. The FBI and CIA are indirectly responsible for not doing what was necessary to prevent 9/11.. The US and UN is indirectly responsible for the massacre of Shia Marsh Arabs and Kurds by Saddam post-Desert Storm. And just as the UN will be "indirectly responsible" in the future should Saddam EVER use his WMDs against any target in an act of aggression... So don't sit there and try to claim that Sharon ordered those attacks. You have NO evidence of that. But do you have evidence that he didn't take every step necessary to prevent the Phalangists from engaging in a massacre themselves?? But then maybe the rest of the Israeli government who supported the Phalangists in the first place are "indirectly responsible" as well... And also quite possibly Sharon was just the convenient scapegoat for what was obviously a flawed Israeli policy fashioned by MANY Israeli politicians. In one sentence: That is not what courts do Oh come on now.. don't be so naive. The Belgian court has GREAT latitude in whether it agrees to hear a case or not. Obviously they believe "indirect resposibility" on Sharon's part is more damning than the OBVIOUS DIRECT AND INDIRECT RESPONSIBILITY Arafat is liable for as a result of ORDERING and FUNDING any number of terrorist acts committed by the PLO and its associated factions over the decades. Thus, they will hear the Sharon case, but ignore the Arafat case.. That REEKS of politicized legal maschinations. Hawk