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: Alan Smithee who wrote (173797)	7/16/2006 11:16:45 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793774

The very difficult and paradoxical thing about the current crisis is that force does not seem to deter the terrorists. Israel acts on the assumption that its adversaries think and feel rationally, that severe punishment is a deterrent. But the last few decades show that this assumption is completely flawed. The use of force has paradoxically done nothing but create sympathy for the terrorists and rain down ill will upon Israel, which is only defending itself. Israel is thus faced with two choices. First, it can ratchet up the levels of violence such that there is very little left to deter. But we know that such levels of violence will not be permitted by the world community. Use of overwhelming force also creates the possibility of an unintended enormous regional conflagration which will inevitably involve opposed Great Powers. Thus, Israel cannot use the significantly higher levels of force which will effectively deter violence. In retrospect, Israel's policy of retaliation has been a huge error as it deters nothing and creates global sympathy for its enemies. The second Israeli option is to engage the Islamic world, another useless option. The US cannot assume its previous role as an honest broker given the situation in Iraq. Moreover, having been emboldened by what is perceived as the US failure in Iraq, it is doubtful that the Islamists at this point could be convinced to engage the Israelis. As I see it, Israel is therefore left without effective options. It is likely to be drawn into a continous and ever-escalating cycle of attack and response which will put it in a permanent war footing. The effect on its economy and on the West's economies thanks to even higher oil prices is predictable. Perhaps this is the result Israel's enemies want.

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (173797)	7/16/2006 2:01:22 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793774

Speaking of the NYT: IN THE COMPANY OF THE ENEMY By Michelle Malkin · July 16, 2006 08:13 AM michellemalkin.com Which side are they on? The New York Times settles the question definitively with a hysterical, unreality-based lead editorial today recycling the BDS attacks on the War on Terror--but even more so with this disgusting pictorial tribute to Iraqi terrorists killing American soldiers, spotted by the vigilant Charles Johnson at LGF. The picture featured by the Times is just one of many being hawked here as a photo compilation titled "In the Company of God by award-winning New York Times photographer, Joao Silva." A sample: [KLP Note: You must go to the site listed above and see these pictures....!!! ] Jeff Goldstein comments on the NYTimes' self-congratulatory smugness: Writes Times assistant managing editor for photography Michele McNally of a photo taken by NYT photographer Joao Silva showing an al-Sadr army sniper in the act of firing on US troops, “Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.” Incredible courage? Well, far be it for me to question such self-congratulatory enthusiasm, but it seems to me that actual “incredible courage” would have entailed, say, Joao Silva getting word to US troops, or bumrushing the sniper and beating him unconscious with a heavy telephoto lens. Whereas what we’ve witnessed here is the product of (admittedly) dangerous opportunism in the service of plaudits and cocktail party invites. But then, I’m still into the whole bourgeois nationalism thing. John Hinderaker at Power Line: "It would have required courage to hang out with the Mahdi Army, if there were any likelihood that a member of the Iraqi "insurgency" would regard a representative of the New York Times as an enemy." Lucianne.com commenters: The NYTimes has jumped the shark. No, they've just come out of the closet.