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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (100432)	2/14/2005 7:08:03 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793671

Your example doesn't work. If I said "I know of many instances where the US Army prevented Special Forces troops from retiring at the previously arranged time," would you merely "suspect" that I was talking about the current operational policy of the Army instead of aberrant behavior by rogue commanders? I think not. Yes I would. But that's because your example is clear that we're talking about US Army policy, not rogue implementation. I may be mistaken but I don't know how a rogues could change tours of duty. What are they going to do, kidnap them? Lose the paperwork? When one speaks of an organization which is known for disciple and adherence to regulation,... Yep, and is also known for fragging and Abu Graib... OK. Now I'm going to try to work with your example as you presented it, without any embellishment. I know how frustrated I get when you guys don't respect the integrity of my examples. I remember trying to get you to stick to my example of a terrorist attack against a foreign invasion.<g> Yes, you're right, a reasonable person would assume it's policy, all things being equal. But all things aren't equal. <<During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted.>> The above is the original report from the conference. Notice that he said "troops." What does "troops" mean? Well, I suppose it could mean the US military as an entity. But it also is the current lingo for "GIs," the inclusive term for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and women, etc. More likely it means that. If you were going to talk about journalists being shot in Iraq, ad hoc, by several different...er... What would you call them? By whom would you say they were killed? By troops. Wouldn't you?