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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (6766)	4/19/2004 9:32:13 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

I honestly don't understand what you mean by that. You don't understand because you haven't incorporated rocks into your daily diet... ;0) After all, you say you don't understand, thus expect that I will amplify and explain myself further so that you can understand. I simply state the inane proposition that your lack of dietary igneous intake is the reason you can't comprehend... ;0) I can spend all night coming up with reasons why you have the inability to understand my logic, criticizing your lack of comprehension, without bearing the responsibility of ever having to further explain myself, or provide an alternative scenario which you might be able to understand. How's that for an example of what I've been talking about?.. ;0) That's a critical monologue.. Criticism merely for the sake of criticism.. Criticism that declares that my logic (or comprehension) is always implicitly flawed, but neither bears the burden of properly explaining why, nor of proposing alternative logic (or means of comprehension). "Doing something" is not always better. But that is not the case in the scenario Nadine and I were discussing. The Israelis are always doing "something". The Palestinians are also doing "something". But both sides are also doing nothing, when it comes to reaching a multi-lateral peace accord. The question is whether or not we should do something that interdicts what they are doing, or not doing. Whether the international community, which is now facing major repercussions for both of their actions, and their likely results, should not intervene to prevent this growing radicalization. Nadine proposed that we do nothing but accept the unilateral extremist actions on the part of both Israelis and Palestinians and let them hash it out for themselves, and the hell with the repercussions for the rest of the world who are trying to decrease the influence of Islamic radicalism and militancy. I assert that the nature of any settlement between Palestinians will need to be bi-lateral, even if "motivated" by extreme (and possibly direct) international pressure in the firm of direct intervention. Because the world has a major interest not only in ending this conflict, but also doing it in such a manner that the greater evil of Islamic militancy is not rewarded and encouraged amongst muslim youth. Hawk