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: KonKilo who wrote (12231)	2/16/2006 12:21:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 540887

Morally bankrupt because this notion seems to indicate that we made the conscious decision to allow other innocent citizens to become "collateral damage" in a long shot attempt to spare our own citizens a similar fate. It might indicate such a conscious decision. Or it might indicate that we feel if they are not fought there, the consequences will be horrible for Iraq, and later also lead to a greater threat here, so that fighting them there is good for Iraq and the US, or at least is thought to be good for Iraq and the US. If the thought is genuine than even if it is inaccurate the action based on it would not be morally bankrupt, although it could potentially have negative consequences for Iraq, and possibly even for the US. Intellectually dishonest because it certainly would be no problem for Al Queda to spare another nineteen jihadis with box cutters. That's more an argument for "false", rather then "dishonest". They aren't the same thing. Also a lot more than 19 people worked on planning, setting up, and executing 9/11 so I'm not sure I would even agree with "false". Perhaps "questionable" could be reasonably argued. Tim