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: carranza2 who wrote (100210)	6/4/2003 2:27:22 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<there is a moral limit to violence as a political tool> Oh, yes, I agree with that, 110%. Let's say that, tomorrow, Hamas carries out a "targetted assassination" of President Bush. Then, they release the following statement: We have the right to use violence for political purposes. There are moral limits to violence as a political tool, but President Bush has exceeded those limits. He has done this by funding, arming, and supporting Israel, who has carried out targetted assassinations of Hamas political leaders for years. He has exceeded all moral limits, by waging a war of aggression against Iraq, a war in which 20,000 Iraqis have died, a war against a nation that has never attacked the U.S., and posed no threat to the national security of the United States. His assassination under the circumstances is justified for these reasons alone. He has put his life on the line by engaging in those kinds of acts. He deserves to be killed so that any future children in any nation targetted under the U.S. doctrine of "preventive war", can live. The deterrent effect on others who would promote such activity will be salutary. Hasn't President Bush essentially declared war against the Arabs? Isn't the assassination of Commanders In Chief a justified activity, in time of war, even if they were not engaged in these morally reprehensible acts? Can you see any similarity, between this (hypothetical) Hamas statement, and your last post? Any at all? Or is it a totally different shoe, when it's on the other foot? <What's the problem?> The problem is, what goes around comes around. Oh, and I'm not a pacifist. "Turn the other cheek" can only be the basis of any nation's foreign policy, after a prolonged period (several generations), of a world where Strict Reciprocity, and respect for all other nation's sovereignty, is observed. I'd like to see "an eye for an eye", replace the current policy, which is: "3 eyes for an eye" and "an eye, just in case they might, at some vague point in any imaginable future, put out our eye".