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 (388703)	6/5/2008 12:38:02 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571405

>By the way, I consider people who bomb abortion clinics to be terrorists as well, and no better than Al Qaeda. And that's absurd. -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (388703)	6/5/2008 12:49:29 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571405

That doesn't make the actions of WU any more acceptable. Or William Ayers' own justifications for his actions any less reprehensible. Or Obama's association with Ayers any less embarrassing. So then, it would seem you believe that once someone has committed a crime, they can never ever be acceptable again....no matter how long they abstain from committing any future crimes. And yet, you forgave Bush's DUIs and his other antics. Ten, you are a man of mystery............

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (388703)	6/5/2008 12:57:58 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571405

"That doesn't make the actions of WU any more acceptable." If you do, then you are debasing the term. They aren't equivalent. "By the way, I consider people who bomb abortion clinics to be terrorists as well, and no better than Al Qaeda." I respect that. A lot. I don't think inode or harris would say the same. But, I still don't see the equivalence. I think there is a crucial difference if they intend, or at least are indifferent, to harm. I don't consider the early Israelis as terrorists in the same sense. I did at one point, but, then I read "Wind From a Burning Woman". Until then, I was pretty dogmatic about the issue. Afterwards, not so sure. It put me in conflict over the issue. Now, I think she was wrong. She risked the lives of everyone on the planet to make her point. Yet, the Naderites made sure there was no other way. So, what to do? For me, the book was a paradigm change. It made me consider an issue I never thought could be in dispute.