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.

Technology Stocks : INTEL TRADER -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (10357)	9/13/2001 6:45:54 AM
From: Jurgen Trautmann	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11051

Legal responsibility war vs. terroristic bombing: In a technical sight war only can happen between nations after a formal declaration. In a wider sense responsible can be every person, company or institution involved in causal-chains that eventually leaded to the disaster if - they failed to do actions / precautions which could have prevent the terroristic action f.e. BA: - production of vehicles that can be misused as bomb (car-producers were sentenced for exploding gas-tanks!) - omitted installation of well known (!!!) security-technic for surveillance and remote-controlling of planes UAL/AA: - operating of dangerous equipment - insufficient prevention against known terroristic risks Airport-operators - insufficient security: f.e. the logical position for a metallic-detector would be the plane-entries Security-agencies - missing or bad consultation and operation* Government / intelligence agencies - omitted publishing of concrete warnings - omitted checking of suspected flight-reservations - omitted enhancing of security-checks in airports with enhanced risks (less than 15 min. to flight to "favorite" targets) - omitted legal prescription of known and available security-technical equipment in airports and airplanes - possible cynical acceptance of victims during the attacks* - omitted legal prescription for special constructions like tall buildings, nuklear plants etc.: thus the risk of earthquake in NYC should be by far less than the risk of terroristic attacks: where's the prevention? I'm not expert but I think there would exist a bunch of possibilities for filing if a foreign company was involved ng ng ng. However - far behind all private liability a government that acts like it acts tolerating (unevitable!)terroristic attacks against his citizens has a more than moral responsibility to support the victims in every possible manner. BTW - say a VERY rich person should be involved: where his assets are invested? The next attack can hit anybody and it could get by far worse - I will not "publish" ideas here, you Americans produce enough terrorist-instruction-"manuals" "printed" in Holywood**** and brain-washed in school-kids everywhere around the world. There's a bunch of possibilities, and every day it's getting worse considering accelerating technical advances. In a human society this would be the opportunity to re-consider advantages vs. risks of common accepted technologies and to re-consider the legal situation of insurance-prescriptions given a aggressive and risk provoking foreign politic. JT * re. insurance: will they (our great intelligence-services) at least check if the terrorists were insured possibly with an US life-insurance? how much money do you need for "financing" the living of 12-20 fanatic terrorists, any flight-lessons and a few knifes? Guess the most expensive of all were the flight-tickets. * just a question: how did this plane with the just symbolic destination "Camp David" came down? No "external" impact? **** Movies need suspense - therefor all operations seem to be very riskful: in reality you probably can get the "modernest" killer-virus (of course developed in US on US-citizens-tax) from a room-maid for a burger-diner.

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (10357)	9/15/2001 5:00:49 AM
From: Jurgen Trautmann	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11051

insurance estimates Company Country Estimated Losses 1. Munich Re Germany $900 mln 2. Swiss Re Switzerland $730 mln 3. Berkshire Hathaway U.S. 3-5 percent of industry losses 4. Lloyd's Britain substantial involvement 5. XL Capital Bermuda $600 mln-$700 mln 6. Employers Re U.S. $600 mln 7. Allianz Germany $630 mln 8. AIG U.S. $500 mln 9. Generali Italy $450 mln 10. ACE Ltd. Bermuda $400 mln 11. PartnerRe Bermuda $350 mln-$400 mln 12. Axa France $300 mln-$400 mln 13. Zurich Financial Switzerland under $400 mln 14. Hannover Re Germany $365 mln 15. CNA Financial U.S. $200 mln-$350 mln 16. Royal Sun Alliance Britain $220 mln 17. SCOR France $150 mln-$200 mln 18. OneBeacon U.S. up to $175 mln 19. Chubb U.S. $100 mln-$200 mln 20. Fairfax Financial Canada $100 mln-$125 mln 21. Markel U.S. up to $75 mln 22. CGNU Britain up to $51 mln source: msnbc.com BTW: am happy owner of a few allianz-shares...