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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: j_b who wrote (3043)	8/25/1998 11:01:00 AM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 13994

<<<<The problem I have with this is one of definitions - one man's terrorism is another man's freedom fighter. Using your logic, the Sudanese would be perfectly justified in using chemical or biological warfare to destroy Los Angeles (good riddance!) because of the "terrorist" acts of our government. Many other nations, especially those you talk about in your posts, consider the U.S. to be a terrorist nation. I think you are saying that, since we are bigger and more powerful, they should shut up and sit down. Might does not make right.>>> Despite all your protestations you have as yet pointed out to me when we or members of our population have snuck into Sudan like a thief in the night with a car bomb killing hundreds of innocent people. <<<The problem with terrorism, is that it is not one country against another, but one person (or a relatively small group of people) against a nation. In effect, it is guerilla warfare, a fight that is very difficult for the U.S. to win, as we found in Vietnam.>>> It will be one country against another if that other country insists on harboring the very men that continue to carry out the transgressions. Mr. Laden himself claimed that all Americans, civilian or not are targets, thus drawing the boundaries himself. <<<I don't disagree with the general concept of going after the terrorists with everything we have, but we need to make sure we are on the moral high ground, and have picked the right targets. Otherwise, it will be the U.S. against the whole world, a fight we can't possibly win, especially with the current state of our military.>>> True, now a little to the left with that Tomahawk next time.

To: j_b who wrote (3043)	8/25/1998 12:15:00 PM
From: halfscot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

You have to go pretty low to be below Sudan's moral high ground. Over the last 10 years the Moslems (or is it Muslims?) in the Sudan have killed over 1.5 million black Sudanese, many of which, if not all, were Christians. The Sudan is one of several countries in Northern Africa that still trade black slaves. The going price is $100. The slave traders kidnap these people from their homes in Africa, killing the young men, cutting the Achilles tendons of those they keep and take them north to sell as indentured slaves as has been done for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. There is one Christian church I know of that regularly collects money and goes to Africa to buy these slaves, the traders don't care who they sell their 'goods' to, and set them free. There seems to be a code among the slavers to not recapture the freed slaves. BTW this has all been well documented with several special reports on TV as well as by the U.N. halfscot PS FWIW I don't consider myself a Christian nor do I attend church although I strongly believe in the values of organized religion.