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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (114972)	9/16/2003 12:55:36 PM
From: Sultan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

OT Second opinion: What they think in Srinagar Khaled Ahmed’s TV Review If you watch the Indian TV channels, the Kashmiris love India but are being coerced by the ‘terrorists’ from Pakistan. If you watch the Pakistani channels, anyone other than the loyalists within the Huriyyat Conference is a ‘kath-putli’. There is however a third way of looking at things The BBC shows that there is genuinely indigenous trouble in Kashmir and that it is wrong to say that Pakistan has instigated the uprising. It can however be said, suggests the BBC, that Pakistan has helped prolong the crisis. But it is difficult to say whether India could have handled the problem right if Pakistan had not ‘interfered’. There is no doubt, however, that it is now handling it wrong and blaming it all on Pakistan. The people are alienated from India; and the BBC has reflected that faithfully by going to Srinagar. The Kashmiris have given their opinion. Who will give in? Unfortunately, however, the BBC discussion may encourage Pakistan to carry on if India is unwilling to relent. dailytimes.com.pk

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (114972)	9/16/2003 4:33:11 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Using your definitions, was Freeman Dyson a "serial killer" or a "soldier"? A soldier. He was following the orders of the officers appointed over to carry out the lawful conduct of war. Those officers were appointed by the government of the nation they represent. And the government was either elected by the people, or consisted of a power elite who dictated how the conduct of the war would be carried out. And aside from the controversial nighttime fire bombing raids of the RAF, US targets were either "precision" oriented, with specific military targets in mind or, as in the case of our firebombing of Japan, aimed at the cottage manufacturing industry from which much of their war material was produced (people constructing war goods in their homes). The dropping of the Atomic bombs are probably the only case in which someone might cite US targeting of entire populations, although STILL under the political cover of their being designated legitimate war targets. However, given that millions of US and Japanese people would have died in any invasion of the home islands, more lives were probably saved than lost as a result. And the attacks upon Saddam's regime were DEFINITELY PRECISION BASED. In fact, some of the most precise in the history of warfare. Had this war been fought 12 years ago when Saddam FIRST violated the cease fire agreements, many more thousands of Iraqis would have died. Either way, for you to show utter contempt for military servicemen/women by equating them to criminal serial killers deliberately preying upon innocents is despicable. I care not whether you ever bothered to put on a uniform, but for you to insult those of us who have, and who were prepared to fight, kill, and if necessary die, so that others could be free, is absolutely uncalled for. War is nasty, brutish, and often indifferent towards what kind of victims it claims. But countering aggression through use of force has seldom, if ever, been classified as criminal. For god's sake, why not just call all police officers who have to kill to protect the public, "serial killers"? After all, that's what they are trained to do? And will you declare yourself a "serial killer", should you find yourself someday having to take the life of some assailant in order to protect the lives of your loved ones? How can you possibly even have the gall to try and justify such a ludicrous, logically dysfunctional, position? Hawk@howdeepareyouwillingtogo.dig