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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (99941)	6/3/2003 9:22:36 AM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 281500

real freedom fighters, fighters who are trying to establish a democracy with greater freedom, not just a new tyranny with themselves on top I think it's a first for me to agree with you (never mind Netanyahu) but that seems an interesting distinction. It does usefully get round the problem of defining Washington as a terrorist... Two cavils, though. What if the fighters hold back only on certain segments of population? (e.g., the IRA killed few Catholics, unless they were in uniform, or in the wrong pub, or shop). I'm not an expert here, but would the Stern Gang, or Irgun, still qualify as terrorist - given the means? And note how many of them did indeed end up on top... indeed, I can't think of many terrorist/ff leaders (however termed) who didn't end up leading their nation, if they won. What if an occupying people, and their collaborators/quislings were targeted? I'm not just thinking of Israel/Palestine here, but the Yugoslavian region under the Nazis. Where do guerilla fighters come in that scale? Or would they be the 'neutral' viewpoint? Overall, although it's an attractive simplification I fear it may be too absolute.