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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (147675)	11/18/2005 7:27:00 PM
From: SirWalterRalegh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

Thomas- kill them if they threaten violence. A lot of blood needs to be spilled before the war against ISLAM comes to a conclusion. Maybe 20 years .....probably more. RB

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (147675)	11/18/2005 11:51:43 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 793843

Thomas, once one embarks on an aircraft hijacking, one is not rating one's survival prospects very highly at all, so yes, I was thinking in those terms, though the issue was the ease of hijacking the aircraft, for whatever purpose. I wasn't thinking of what I would do with the aircraft if I took it over. The point was that I could take it over. Once that was achieved, the rest was irrelevant. There is nothing new at all about suicidal attacks on enemies. That's as old as the hills in social organisms, such as humans. One shouldn't be the slightest surprised by it. Japanese kamikaze pilots did it en masse. Many many soldiers have knowingly gone to their death, determined to at least take some with them. That would include many many Americans. I can easily understand the thinking and even without an after-life can imagine circumstances in which I'd do the same in the service of my family. Part of the USA problem is lack of empathy with other people. Taunting with pig vomit would elicit hatred and contempt, but probably something a lot more subtle than threats of violence from them. You would not achieve your aim. The Islamic Jihadists are not mindless morons who will rise to the bait like a rabid Pavlovian dog. Some of them have got a lot more imagination than Condoleezza Rice and co, who thought that nobody could imagine hijacking of passener aircraft and attacking buildings with them. For a start, Osama's crew imagined it just fine. Maybe we should hire Osama to run the world since he obviously has more imagination than those currently in charge. Americans volunteer to die in military conflict too. Certainly they are hoping for better odds than 100% certitude of death, but heading out past the front lines in a kill or be killed expedition, one knows that there is a chance of not coming back. So whether the odds are 100% death, 90%, or 1%, it's still the same thing, just a matter of degree. One calculates the odds, the value, other choices etc and places the bet. The other aspect of the attacks is the murder of civilians, including women, children and other Moslems. Of course they don't hope to kill Moslems - they are just collateral damage and Americans are gung ho for a spot of collateral damage too, so nothing unusual there. There's nothing odd about killing civilians including children either. Americans do that too. Think of B52 mass bombings of Vietnam and Hiroshima/Nagasaki and fire bombing of Tokyo. Dresden was incinerated. In total war, which Islamic Jihad is running, everyone and everything is fair game. Whining about the strategy is silly and hypocritical. Why they do it is what matters and how to stop them them doing it. One could "save the village by destroying it". Or, one could do other things. I recommend other things. I think some Islamic Jihadists would even eat pork to trick the enemy into letting them into a position to attack. One should be careful of expecting pigs to be useful in the conflict. Mqurice