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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (2521)	7/29/2005 1:10:37 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542054

You know, I have been thinking a lot about this. And maybe for me it call comes down to the "emotional harm" point. Terrorism is a campaign to crush people emotionally, and cause emotional harm- rather than to battle for military supremacy. Whenever that occurs, I think it tends to land on the terrorist side of the spectrum. Will there be gray areas? of course. But I think that is probably the thing that I generally look for- are we aiming for an emotional underbelly (whatever it might be) or are we planning a military campaign.

To: Lane3 who wrote (2521)	7/29/2005 1:17:07 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542054

Of course anyone can be terrorised by any number of fear producing phenomena. I was referring to a specific act intended to cause fear in innocent people in order to leverage influence over one's enemy. If that doesn't qualify then nothing does. I have no doubt the term will be morphed into irrelevance before we go much further. Currently right wing extremists are fond of labeling any enemy force as terrorists. Left wing extremist are fond of justifying away terrorist action by finding alternative circumstantial motives and explanations for the behavior. Wont be long until the term itself represents nothing more than a convenient excuse to objectify someone you want to pick on ... are we there yet?