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: JohnM who wrote (100002)	6/3/2003 1:50:48 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ah, you love to pose questions and then try to force a reply, don't you, c2 Just as you love to retreat into definitional obscurantism whenever you find yourself defending the indefensible. You're not fooling anybody with this righteous indignation, John. As for inherent evil, my epistemology doesn't get me there. But there are certainly things such as mass murders that are about as bad as one can imagine; the Holocaust is about as bad as one can imagine; Stalin's purges, slaughter of the peasants, etc.; the list keeps going on. Isn't using the words "as bad as one can imagine" instead of "inherent evil" just dodging the question? If you can't use "evil", on what basis can you use "bad"? btw, how does blowing up schoolkids on a bus rank on your scale?

To: JohnM who wrote (100002)	6/3/2003 2:30:49 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Ah, you love to pose questions and then try to force a reply, don't you, c2. It's rather fun to prompt old lefties into using neural passageways rusted from lack of use. ;) The question is rather whether the term "terrorist" is a term reserved for historical winners to describe the actions of historical losers, the Nietzchean statement. Not at all. Castro has been described as a terrorist; he is a historical winner. Ditto Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Geo. Washington, and a multitude of other historical winners too numerous to list. Forget about ugly sophistries like "dynamics"--the point you and Jacob seem intent on ignoring is that in situations where there is a rebellion, the allegedly oppressed will be tempted resort to "all means necessary", to quote H. Rap Brown, in order to achieve their objectives. This is usually a function of morally indeterminate zeal. The question is whether inherently evil acts of terror are justified, regardless of whether one is a winner or a loser, oppressed or oppressor. If you think as I do, they are not. This puts the Pals and others who are involved in the indoctrination of children into suicide bombings in the morally repugnant category. It is they who need to be supressed. They are making a mockery of all that makes us human. QED.