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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (218032)	2/7/2005 10:10:09 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574683

Any where there are settlements the wall goes out to encompass them. Again sensible. You put the wall in such a way that your enemy is on the other side of it. If you are in danger you don't want to be on the other side of it. If a settlement could be reached then there might not be a need for a wall or the wall could be set up differently covering different areas but in the absence of a settlement you have to protect people where they are. Uhh......didn't the Russians build a wall and then ended up tearing it down? Didn't the Chinese build a wall and found that it was ineffective in keeping its enemies out? Walls may provide psychological comfort but in the end they are not all that effective in safeguarding yourself from your enemies. To the extent there is defacto annexaction it is the settlement not the wall the constitutes such annexation. Its easier to tear down, even tear down an move a wall then it is to uproot unwilling people. It is the settlement not the wall that should draw your (And the Palestinians) ire. That's right............the wall is simply the icing on the cake. However, you were the one who was questioning whether the Israelis have been annexing WB land or not. I guess you've answered your own question. ted