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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (388655)	6/4/2008 11:05:56 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571423

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 .. This is just liberalism at its worst. Rather than absolute boundaries based on the law, we bend the boundaries as necessary. So, as long as nobody was killed? No problem. Nevermind the fundamental, philosophical approach was all screwed up. Nevermind that these people continue to believe what they did was not only right, but that it continues today to be an acceptable approach for the poor idiots who are their students. Pathetic. Just pathetic.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (388655)	6/4/2008 11:20:01 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571423

>Doesn't matter whether they thought they're going to save millions of lives. Yeah, I'd say it does. It might make them stupid, but I don't think it makes them bad. >You are desperate to lay down some sort of hypothetical context to justify Ayers' terrorism ... Not really. I don't give two s**ts about Ayers. If he's the best you have on Obama, Obama's going to coast to victory in November. As I said, I decided to do some actual reading and what I found didn't seem too bad to me. But you guys are acting like the Weathermen were equivalent to Al-Qaida or something, and what does that say about you? You guys are desperately grasping at straws, and I'm enjoying it. -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (388655)	6/4/2008 11:30:28 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571423

"You are desperate to lay down some sort of hypothetical context to justify Ayers' terrorism ." Nonsense. Sorry, Taro. I've tried to respect your request, but... What you are seeing is the result of debasing the term "terrorism". Technically speaking, what the WU did was terrorism. But that is a long way from strapping on a suicide belt and walking into a market. Or parking a truck full of explosives in the basement of a building that contains a daycare. Now, spiking trees may be closer, and it is worse that pouring water into the fuel tank of a bulldozer or breaking into a building and splattering an office with red paint. Yet all of these have been described as "terrorism". There is a bright, red line when people start to get injured. Much less killed. And there is another line crossed when the injuries or death is deliberate. Below that, well, I don't know. It isn't a prank. But it doesn't class with the others. Calling it terrorism, however, only weakens the term. If you want to classify terrorism as some sort of ultimate, then you need a different term for the other stuff. Or vice versa. I don't really care. Because I felt a real need to break into Exxon's boardroom and do a little damage when they decided to use surfactants to clean up after the Valdez. No explosives, no fire. Probably some paint. I would never hurt anyone, or even come close. But I did want to send a message. Yet, that would have been a terrorist activity. Why is that?