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: Dayuhan who wrote (98451)	5/18/2003 7:15:41 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you remember the James Burke historical "Connections" PBS series of the 70s/80s? For any primary responsibility, there are a few secondary responsibilities. For the secondary causes, there are several tertiary catalysts. It's like the Six Degree Kevin Bacon game of geo-political separation history. One could eventually convict pre-1602 France of today's Iraqi friendly-fire AA deaths. Should Burke re-start that series, this would be a most interesting analysis. "We see a bit of the same in Iraq, when we maintain that it isn’t our fault that civilians may have been killed by falling anti-aircraft ordinance. That to me is ridiculous. We put bombers over the city, we have to own up to responsibility for the consequences, no matter who actually fired the weapon that did the damage. If English civilians were killed by falling AA rounds during the blitz, the Nazis were as responsible for those deaths as they were for those caused by their bombs. It can be argued that those deaths were unavoidable collateral damage, and that the importance of the war made them necessary. It’s churlish to pretend we’re not responsible."

To: Dayuhan who wrote (98451)	5/18/2003 8:00:49 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The one difference between Mohammed al Dura's death and your 'normal' urban street fight is the videotape. The boy and his father were being filmed and nobody can accuse the Palestinians of being unaware of the possibilities of film. Also, the incident was less chaotic than your riot because the Israelis were stationed in one fortified checkpoint. The main argument is simply that the boy and his father were out of the line of Israeli fire. Of course, you can never know with 100% certainty, etc, etc, but I haven't heard anybody even allege that the Israelis were anyplace else. I don't believe the whole conspiracy theory either, because it's too complicated. Why make it a conspiracy? All it would take is one person who noticed that boy and his father were being filmed to decide to 'martyr' them for the cause. What could be simpler than that?