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: aladin who wrote (115094)	9/17/2003 2:56:15 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You said: <you seem to want to protect these men (Taliban and Al Queda) and shoot our soldiers.> How is that different from calling me a traitor? McCarthyite tactics: Calling people traitors because they criticize the government. <You have spent numerous posts praising Mao....> Yes. Mao does deserve praise, and a close study of his methods. He and Giap were the finest theorists and practitioners of guerrilla war. That is the kind of war we are now fighting. We got our butts kicked the last time we tried to defeat a guerrilla army. I think we should study from the masters. You seem to believe that Ignorance is Strength. <....called our soldiers 'serial killers'....> In the sense that they kill, and do it serially, yes. I also compared our WW2 area bombings of cities, with Palestinian suicide bombings. Using the definitions of "soldier" and "serial killer" which you posted, both these actions, (and the people who did them) meet your definition of "serial killer". I simply took your definitions, and compared them, word for word, with actions. Hoisted you on your own... <...established their guilt in Bagram...> Our military has already admitted that it was homicide. And that it happened to prisoners in our custody, in the most secure part of a U.S. Army base. So, someone is guilty; a crime has been committed. The only question left, is exactly who, if anybody, is going to be held responsible. What about that Canadian journalist recently murdered by the Iranian secret police? Do you think no crime has been committed, because the Iranians haven't arrested or convicted anyone? And if the Iranians "investigate" forever, and never name or punish anyone, will you conclude that no crime was ever committed? Of course not. Yet that's the attitude (endlessly credulous, infinitely forgiving) you consistently apply to similar crimes committed by our troops. And then you accuse me of having a double standard.

To: aladin who wrote (115094)	9/17/2003 4:06:54 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think you misunderstood those posts. The way I read the post about Mao, no one was praising his policies, but the poster was arguing that his tactic were worthy of study. There is a tendency, when looking at people one does not like, to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and assume that because one does not like what they do, they are not good at anything. Mao was brilliant. You and I may not like what he did to China (although I can only speak for myself, and I do not like what he did), nevertheless he was often brilliant about the way he did it- and a brilliant tactician should always be studied. You can often learn a lot from men you consider enemies. Friends usually already think the way you do, and do things the way you do- that is why they are "friends"- you are comfortable with the way they are. But you can learn a lot more from an enemy who comes at things in a totally different way- even if you only learn from him how to defend yourself, that is a great deal, and worthy of study.