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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (388646)	6/4/2008 10:44:51 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1571423

Z, > If blowing up a few bombs without killing anyone had saved the lives of millions of people that should not have died, you wouldn't think that their actions were OK? In the case of the Weather Underground, none of their bombs saved any lives. Doesn't matter whether they thought they're going to save millions of lives. Their actions still amounted to terrorism and anarchy. You are desperate to lay down some sort of hypothetical context to justify Ayers' terrorism ... Tenchusatsu

To: SilentZ who wrote (388646)	6/4/2008 10:55:07 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571423

"Hell, seems to me that it really was a noble cause." Sort of. Most of them were like Ayers. Rich kids who thought they were smarter than everyone else. They did have a flair for the theatric, and that made them their name. The problem is that they didn't shorten the war. Nor did they have a chance to. If anything, they made the situation worse because it gave the government a lightning rod to focus middle class dissent away from them. They would have done better with haircuts and nice clothes, using daddy's money to make little films about the stuff the government was hiding and lying about. Heck, they could have started the War Channel on early cable. Filled it with their own content. That would have made a difference. Terrorism can attract attention. But it is a very dicey method, at best. Killing innocents, or destroying their livelihood, is never good. And it usually makes the situation worse. That, and society has a strong motivation to land on you like a ton of bricks. But, at that age, personal safety is an abstract thing until the last moment. And then it is usually too late.

To: SilentZ who wrote (388646)	6/5/2008 9:59:29 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571423

Z, If blowing up a few bombs without killing anyone had saved the lives of millions of people that should not have died, you wouldn't think that their actions were OK? Hell, seems to me that it really was a noble cause. I think you need to rethink you political outlook. It it leads you to justify, support and excuse terrorism. In a democracy, there is a political process to have your voice heard. And bombs are not the tools to use in a political process. If you think that exploding bombs expedited the end of war, I think you are wrong. It actually hurt those who tried to end the war through peaceful means. Joe