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 (68688)	3/14/2003 2:57:28 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

RE: "Then you and I do not have the same definition of 'prejudice' and 'proof'." I am not sure the definition is different so much as our world view is different. My view of history tells me that the burden of proof is on you and that you will not succeed. RE: "And no, "indirectly responsible" is not the same thing as "innocent"." It is also not the same as criminally liable. Remember, a criminal case has to be proved, ostensibly, beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect that the kangeroo court in Belgium doesn't much care about the quality of the prosecution since it will be a "political" trial. RE: "I am sorry to say this but I feel your judgement is clouded by your religious affinity to Israeli soldiers. You most likely would not be as supportive of, say, the Serbian army if it were the Bosnian women and children being massacred by some bloodthirsty thugs they let into a Bosnian village and watched as the latter went on a three-day killing spree." I would not expect that the Serbs would hold a Commission of Inquiry. In fact, only one country in the history of the world would do so. It is "ethnic" affinity, since most Israelis and I are not relgious. I like your "bloodthirsty thugs" because it very accurately characterizes Israel's neighbors in the region. I think the Commission wanted to say that Sharon should have acted differently because he knew that all Arabs were "bloodthirsty thugs." Their solution was that Israeli commanders should have entered the camps with the "thugs" to keep them on course. RE: "Three days, Carl." Check my user ID: "Cary Salsberg"