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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (77807)	7/1/2006 12:50:29 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

I didn't make up the idea that the vast majority of terrorist acts against Israel were in retaliation for actions Israel had taken. The terrorists themselves have been saying it virtually every time, about nearly every act. Yes of course the terrorists say it, especially the Palestinians, who have become world masters at victimhood and giving the reporter the story he wants to report. The Nazis also said it, as they used internal terrorist acts to help them take over Germany, long before Germany was rearmed or a threat to other countries. Way back in 1952, when a family of Jews was murdered in a town near the Jordanian border, an Israeli army unit entered Jordan and wiped out every man, woman and child in it, in the name of revenge. The Israeli government disavowed this act, saying that it had been the work of a rogue unit commander. (The commander was Ariel Sharon, for those of you who don't know this story. Yes, that Ariel Sharon.) I know this story, and naturally the Arabs tell a different version of it than the Israelis. Also, naturally, the Israeli were acting in response the fedayeen campaign from Jordan that was costing the Israelis hundreds of civilian casualties. How is it that this logic of retaliation always works in one direction only? For the Israelis it's immoral, but for the Arabs it's quite understandable. Not that you condone it, but... If it's to be condemned for one side, it should be condemned for the others. After all, who had more reason than the Jews for retaliation in the 20th century? Did they spend the years after WWII blowing up German marketplaces? This isn't a matter of my reasoning as much as it is observation, and it doesn't apply to the history of the fascist movements. The fascists mounted armies and invaded other countries. They were using military force, and it made perfect sense to use military force against them. Of course it does. This idea that rules change completely as a function of your opponents current state of power, as opposed to what he wants to achieve, and his likelihood to get the means to achieve it, is completely unrealistic. The time to oppose totalitarian fascists is before they have achieved mastery of countries and armies, not after.