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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (68668)	3/14/2003 8:16:28 AM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Respond to of 70976

zonder and ST, thank you for for taking the time and energy to keep the rest of us informed on a view that is almost never presented in the general media. Unfortunately, by the time a person has spent half a century gradually accreting a view of events and incorporating the view into every emotional molecule of the brain, a few posts of contrary evidence will not un-connect all those neural links. You can lead a horse to water, but you know the rest. Sarmad

To: zonder who wrote (68668)	3/14/2003 11:02:47 AM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

RE: "Not guilty, although I cannot see how..." Twice, you have presented the same text that seems to implicate Yaron, who was on the scene. You use it to support your opinion of Sharon's guilt. Sharon wasn't on the scene. I think you should "see how" Yaron was exonerated before you join a Sharon lynching party. RE: "...would you say a Jewish person can never be judged outside of Israel because the court in question would never be impartial?" We have a long history in the US which supports the conclusion that African-Americans "can never be judged" by a jury of white Americans. Recently, the American presidency was handed to one candidate by the US Supreme Court, which voted 5-4 along party lines. You require me to, a priori, show "prejudice", but I think history, long and consistent, places the ball in your court. RE: "I am not party to any religion. But even if I were, I cannot imagine that I would be OK with letting free a man who has let such a massacre take place, or objecting to another court taking up the matter when courts of my country refuse to, just because he prays my way. Frankly, I find it especially unsettling that this should be the Jewish faith, whose believers suffered inhuman massacres themselves only two generations ago, and who should thereby be more sensitive to other people's collective suffering." Your posts indicate that you are not expert on the findings of the Commission of Inquiry. Yet, you have judged that Sharon "let such a massacre take place", that Israeli courts "refuse to...take up the matter", and that "another court" should. I tried to read the whole report in 2000, when discussion arose on these threads. It was very depressing and I didn't read every line. I believe the report is a testimony to the "Jewish faith's...sensitivity to other people's collective suffering." When was the last time you saw a contemporary report of the judiciary that faulted top government leaders and recommended and got their removal? Remember, it was the Lebanese Christian army that massacred the Palestinians. Why is Sharon the target?