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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (172963)	10/20/2005 7:46:44 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It might sound like that to you, but what you are really describing is someone who sees fighting terrorism differently than you do. I think it is stupid to declare "war" on terror- but I support fighting terror. I find declaring war on it to be an empty emotional gesture, and considering how badly we've done on the other things we've declared war on (poverty and drugs) I'd suggest it's a little self defeating too. I didn't support the invasion of Afghanistan, and I still don't. I would have supported hunting down and surgically killing the people responsible for 9/11 (and I said that)- and that might have ended in the capture of Osama, who Mr. Bush just never mentions anymore... But no, I did not support the invasion. And yes, I think we may have to accept a little terror, in order to keep our freedom, but that doesn't mean I don't approve of fighting terrorism in the ways I've outlined in other posts. It's possible that it is important to you that people call this "The War on Terror"- and that just supporting fighting terrorism is not enough. If that is the case, then no, I guess in your mind I don't support the WOT. I assumed you meant it the same was as I would mean by "fighting terrorism"- but you might not meant that. I support fighting terrorism in the ways I think are most rational, and most effective. I might be wrong about the rationality and effectiveness, but I obviously support fighting terrorism- whether that means the same as "supporting the WOT" I don't know now- because it begins to look like to do that I need to 1. agree with you about how we fight terror, and 2. agree to call it the "WOT" which I think is stupid. If you had done a proper search, and wanted to balance your findings, you would have posted one of my posts similar to these: Message 21545934 Message 21348529 "Sounds like someone opposed to a war on terror to me." I think it all sounds like what you want it to sound like. You started with a premise and you went out to find facts that fit it, and ignored the ones that didn't. That's what it sounds like to me. Funny how things sound different to different people, isn't it?