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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (19844)	7/24/2003 1:15:39 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

are you implying that Israel is an "Evil Empire"? No. What I would suggest that governments are run by people and people have the capacity to rationalize any action they choose to make. History is filled with choices of the "best of two evils". You could even consider the the Roman Catholic Church and the implicit rationalization that they went through to move the pedophiles around. The US/UK encouraged the Shiites to rise against Saddam and then did nothing but watch them get slaughtered. What rationalization must have occurred to get to that point in history. Churchill allowed Coventry to be bombed rather than some theoretical risk of the Germans guessing the codes would be brokem. The Allies targeted civilian populations during WWII...moral clarity? Thousands of WWII innocent civilians compared to a mere 100 people on an intelligence collection ship. 100 people in the scheme of things isn't much. At a given moment of time in a period of crisis what an individual may decide to do is pretty unpredictable. If the intent was to draw the US into a war, thus ensuring a particular outcome, is that so much more repugnant than allowing Coventry to be bombed? Is it any more repugnant than watching the Shiites get slaughtered. Moral clarity is, unfortunately arbitrary. No one else has been immune to it, why should Israel? jttmab