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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (55566)	9/16/2001 10:28:13 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 275872

Ted, <No one can convince me he is stupid enough to think that attacking us will send us home with our tail between our legs.> He's not stupid enough to think we'd do that, at least in the near-term. He (or whoever was responsible) is probably banking on laying low and hoping that anti-terrorist resolve will crumble with time. Not only that, but he's probably hoping that the attack will galvanize anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. That was evidenced by those Palistinians who celebrated in the streets. As for Bin Laden's denials, didn't Timothy McVeigh deny bombing the building in Oklahoma City at first? If Bin Laden is responsible, he sure doesn't need to admit it. The act itself is enough of a statement. Tenchusatsu P.S. - OK, enough being an armchair expert on terrorism, at least for me.

To: tejek who wrote (55566)	9/16/2001 11:38:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Ted, And yet, Joe, it would appear that you are ready to go after bin Laden on NO evidence. Evidence is just one of many factors that should go into deciding whether or not to go to war. Much more important reasons are whether the country is hostile, what is the ambition of the country, how aggressive it is, does it threaten US interests, US citizens or even US homeland, is there an immediate incident that would justify declaration of war (and this is where the evidence comes in.) With Serbia, the country was not hostile to the US, the only ambition Serbia had at the time was to salvage as much as possible from it's disintegrating country, it in no way threatened the US, US interests, citizens or US territory. The incident that sparked the war was a negotiating misstep of an inexperienced State department team, where they gave Serbia an ultimatum, and they couldn't find their way out of it. The incident to jusify going to war was "developed" stated after the fact, it was all this genocide talk, of which there not only was there no evidence at the time, the test of time proved the premise it to be false. In case of bin Laden and Taliban, they are openly hostile to the US, in fact bin Laden declared war on the US (kind of a strange thing for an individual to do, but he inflicted more damage on the US than many foreign powers). The ambition of the bin Laden is to kill Americans and Jews everywhere. As far as the incident that would justify our response, there were numerous: attacks on US embassies in Africa, attack on US troops in Saudi Arabia, attack on the US ship in Yemen (at least 2 of the 3), and the recent attacks. As far as evidence, apparently we had enough evidence on this guy even prior to this attack, when we fired some cruise missiles at Afganistan, and I don't recall anyone disputing the fact that we had the right guy, just the strategy of the attacks. As far as the current attacks, the preliminary evidence is pointing to bin Laden, and since we already have more than enough on the guy even prior to the attack If we assassinate bin Laden and there is no evidence that he is directly guilty, we create the Islam martyr for the 21st century. Are you serious about this "no evidence" or just playing the devil's advocate? Joe