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: unclewest who wrote (67383)	9/6/2004 1:42:02 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793912

You are just playing games. The only reason I came up with the hypothetical was to try to draw people out when my straightforward question evoked only limited response. Folks can answer the straight question, which I've asked many times. If case you missed it <g>, it's whether or not terrorism is an absolute nono or whether it might be morally acceptable in some circumstances. Or they can engage on my hypothetical, which was designed to shake an answer out of those who are not used to venturing outside the box. Or they can take a pass on the discussion, as many obviously have. I'm sorry that my attempts didn't work for you. Your questions are not worth answering I think it's an important question, one of the important questions of our time. The question came up in the context of Nadine's issue with media bias, an issue clearly of importance to many people here given the number or words it gets. It's also important in the framing of our war, the question of whether this is a war on terror or on something else. I opened by offering my tentative opinion, which is that I don't think that terrorism is an absolute nono, that when Western Civilization is pushed to the wall, we should not eschew terrorism out of hand. In my mind, the question of whether it's more barbaric to try to provoke enemy retreat by targeting enemy civilians occupying our homeland or whether it is better, for those of us who are not killed by our conquerors, to live under sharia law rather than under our Constitution is pretty easily resolved in favor of defending our country and civilization as we know it. I have not heard anything to change that opinion. But then I haven't had much input. I do respect, however, the position that we're better dead or forcibly converted to Islam than to descend to that level of barbarity in our tactics.