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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (7065)	2/19/2004 9:47:03 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

I have wondered for a while now why the enemy is defined as "terrorism" (as in "war on terrorism"), which is a METHOD OF WARFARE. War on terrorism makes as much sense as war on karate. They are methods employed by your real enemies to attack you. Why not define the enemy as the people who are actually attacking you? Could it be that it is convenient to name the enemy in such a way that the war will go on forever (and so will its political advantages) since you cannot possibly defeat a method of warfare?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (7065)	2/19/2004 10:35:30 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

It's one of those things that sounds so good on a message board. The terrorists are human beings too. They deserve 3 squares, lawyers, clothes, blankets, plenty of exercise, music. In the real world, I'd love to see the proponent read the Geneva accords to OBL and his henchman. How about lecturing on the basic thesis, for which I've been criticized by many who post here, that it is wrong to target civilians with minimal hope of getting a stray military target. OBL - and his crew, by targeting WTC and US life in general - is not entitled to the protection of any POW status. It's a new world. The "Bible" evolves with the times. Commentary and precedent become law over time. People can spout fine theories of the value of "terrorist life" from the protection of their cafes <gggg>, but in the real world, most Americans will support whatever it takes within reason to get information from those being held in Cuba. I will admit that my cynicism of government inefficiency in general would have me modify that answer to require a set of rules that provides for orderly determination and I would agree that there has been foot-dragging. As for children being held, I'd make it a presumption that the kid was brainwashed and that an orderly process of reversing that with education and psychological treatment should be the most efficient way of handling that, with the goal of rapid re-unification with his family. I am arguing with the process and its efficiency not the fact that terrorists are being held without rights normally given to US Citizens under the Constitution and without rights normally given to POW's under the Geneva Accords.