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: LindyBill who wrote (256736)	7/4/2008 5:47:40 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794001

It's silly to call it "terror": <The latest assessment from the Pentagon, released last week, describes a dual terror threat in Afghanistan: the Taliban in the south, and "a more complex, adaptive insurgency" in the east, made up of groups ranging from al-Qaida and Afghan warlords to Pakistani militants. > It's opposition to conquerors and what were called collaborators in World War II France. In France, Charles de Gaulle and the opposition to occupation were called "The Resistance", rather than "a dual terror". It's a conflict between two ideologies, not between "terrorists" and "the good guys". The Islamic Jihad ideology versus The West. I happen to prefer The West's ideology [as the lesser of the two evils]. But that doesn't mean Islamic Jihad is "dual terrorists". From the Islamic Jihad point of view, I'd say Predators and incomings from troops and a whole panoply of weaponry is very terrorizing. The Islamic Jihadists run more of a total war approach than The West who try to minimize collateral damage and civilian harm. Islamic Jihad will murder anyone who opposes them. They don't go along with that free speech, diverse opinion, ideology. Mqurice