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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (103411)	7/18/2007 5:53:51 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

"The WTC could be considered infrastructure that supported the US and the US military. Especially since the tenants of the buildings included many banks, brokerages and government offices which included the CIA and FEMA." If you want to make irrational stretches to dissemble all distinguishing criteria for terrorists you could say the same thing about anything in existence. It doesn't surprise me that people like you and Ward Churchill would try it, but it is a corruption of terms to do so. "Same as attacking the water or electricity could be considered military targets." Not true. If the USA attacked the electricity and water supply in Cairo it would not, under these circumstances, be considered a military target in the war with Saddam. However, there is a very clear (to reasonable people) and direct connection between water in Bagdad and the success of or defeat of the enemy forces in Bagdad. The connection is not terrorism of the innocents in Bagdad. It is by design a disruption of supplies to the enemy forces. " Regardless of the label* you wish to use, the results of such an attack on critical infrastructure and it's impact on innocents is known and it's huge. "* The label 'terrorism' is what we were discussing. I haven't disputed the impacts on the innocents. You calling it an act of terror, however, is a corruption of the term. Your insisting that the USA intended to terrorize innocents by bombing Military targets and taking out the supply lines is blatantly unsubstantiated by any policy or statement from officials and patently false. "If such impacts are not properly mitigated, then it's an act of terror on the innocents. That is not the context of terrorism that we've been discussing. And aren't you one of the people who has been whining about the billions spent by America to mitigate damages in Bagdad? Maybe you save that for a different topic of convenience.