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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (67160)	9/5/2004 9:18:45 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Leading Iraqi fugitive captured Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri in custody, Iraqi Defense Ministry says Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, deputy commander of armed forces under Saddam Hussein, was captured Sunday near Tikrit by the Iraqi national guard and U.S. troops, the Iraqi Defense Ministry said. He was the highest-level Iraqi official not yet captured. Last November, the U.S. military announced a $10 million reward for information leading to his capture. The military said al-Duri was organizing many attacks by insurgents in Iraq. Al-Duri was number six on the U.S. military's list of 55 most wanted Iraqi officials, which described him as vice-chairman of Saddam's Revolutionary Command Council. He was the king of clubs on the U.S. military's card deck showing wanted Iraqi officials cnn.com

To: aladin who wrote (67160)	9/5/2004 9:34:49 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

You are creating a moral equivalency where terrorism of civilians is justified. I'm trying to analyze whether there is any circumstance where terrorism of civilians is justified, yes. That is how we determine if something is absolute--only if there are no exceptions. I'm suggesting possible exceptions to test if those who say terrorism is absolutely wrong really believe that. And lets be absolute about it - the bad guys are the ones who target children. I can agree with that. So, in my scenario, are you saying that it would be appropriate for uw and his warriors to engage in terrorism against my theoretical Islamicist occupiers as long as they didn't target children? Or do you think that terrorism is always unacceptable no matter what is at stake and you're rather we all be killed or forcibly converted? Or something in between?