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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (94772)	4/19/2003 5:20:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Brumar, abusing armed Moslems would be the equivalent of abusing the soldiers, who Nadine suggested might accidentally-on-purpose kill her. So, it's a bit of a grin to think of him being courageous talking safely in front of a bunch of fellow believers and comparing that courage with that of somebody who risked being shot by trigger-happy soldiers. If she was accidentally-on-purpose killed, that would make it comparable to Moslems killing Graham for invective against them. Which would make Graham's reported comments about Moslems as valid as for the Crusaders. There was obviously some serious risk that she'd be shot. Paul thinks that doesn't involve courage. I have no idea on what definition for "courage" he has, but risking death is in my book courage. It seems that only approved people can exhibit courage. The bad guys can't have courage. Which is of course very silly. Here's a Dictionary.com definition of courage. dictionary.reference.com She was saying to go ahead and shoot her. Defiance like that, if not suicidal, is definitely in the courageous category. Mqurice