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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (67393)	10/10/2008 5:36:13 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

No misleading quoting here. Here is the entire post I commented on and what you claim as your first sentence isn't there: Making a point on how the definition of a terrorist, their respectability and acceptability changes with time. In Washington's day going clad in regular clothes and firing from ambush on soldiers was the equivalent of IEDs and truck bombs now. But I'm sure you'd agree that his reputation has recovered... you wouldn't refuse to serve on a committee bearing his name, as it were? Seriously, Shamir is an excellent example of how a murderous terrorist - no hyperbole, by any definition - can become accepted. And people worked with him despite whatever revulsion they felt at his past. Message 25052705 This phrase: "Well, personally, no, I'd rather see all terrorist rot and die, ideally in pain and misery." isn't there. Not that it would matter. Saying Washington was the equivalent of a terrorist or IED/truck bomber is still wrong. Washington led a rebellious army against the army of a king. Period. Not the same thing. Outside hyperbole I wouldn't class Washington as a terrorist - rebel or insurrectionist are fine, and IMHO freedom fighter really is extremely accurate there. Yet his tactics were quite terrible at the time, after all, and IIRC his troops were turned against civilians (turning out loyal farmers etc) as well as soldiers and loyal militia. Soldiers and loyal militia were one thing. I know of no reason to ascribe turning out loyal farmers to Washington. I'm sure that happened, but I know of no instance of Washington doing it. So I am pointing out how terming someone a terrorist is often used as a brand, a form of Godwin's Law if you will, it is not always such an appropriate word. But it IS sometimes an appropriate word. And there's nothing wrong with using it as such. And in the same post, the example of Yitzhak Shamir, true terrorist, murderer and Nazi collaborator, and PM of Israel, demonstrates how it may be reasonable and necessary in politics to work with a former terrorist. Would you disagree there? I haven't read enough in detail to know. I only know he was part of something called Lehi or the Stern gang. I would disagree with the Nazi collaborator part as I think he was in Palestine at the time.