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 (3254)	8/26/1998 6:16:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 13994

<<<This is where I think the danger lies in your position. The Sudanese people may not have considered the acts in question to be terrorism. They may, however, consider the bombing to be terrorism. Or perhaps they considered our bombing of Iraq, or our support of Israel to be either direct or supported terrorism. If that's the case, they would be perfectly justified in supporting the bombing of American targets, since they would consider us a terrorist nation.>>> As I said, rhetoric over reality. The evil is in who shoots first. <<<There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. If a country attacks us, we know who to respond against. What you have described is an appropriate response during a war. Can an individual or a non-aligned group wage a war? If so, do the same rules apply? Are we in any way guilty if the rest of the world doesn't agree that the Sudanese strike was justified? Just some thoughts.>>> You just answered your own question as to what terrorism is. A non-aligned group committing an act of aggression. And if as a country you knowingly harbor and support those commtting the acts then you are as guilty as they. Off-topic... You know the Muslim and Arab world would do themselves a great service if they would just stop hating the Jews.

To: j_b who wrote (3254)	8/26/1998 7:55:00 PM
From: Doughboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Plus, there is another faulty premise to CHURCHILL's logic and that is that the Sudanese have a choice in their government. <<It is up to the Sudanese people as it is up to us to understand and react to what government does>> The government of Sudan, as I understand it, is an armed dictatorship that got to power through civil war. It is not a democracy under which one might make the plausible argument that the people are "responsible" for the actions of their government. And besides, millions of Sudanese men women and children are starving to death. All they could possibly know is that they want the civil war to end so they can go back to farming the land and feeding themselves. Doughboy.