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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: westpacific who wrote (10046)	9/22/2001 3:04:09 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi West, I agree with most of the article but: starting with our president, used the adjective 'cowardly' to describe the perpetrators. This is inappropriate. I disagree here simply because your friend is putting the same constraint on the word coward as many have recently. By the definition in the dictionary he is absolutely correct, however in the common vernacular of our day cowardly also denotes an attack on innocents or at least defenseless victims. The dictionary entry will eventually be modified to catch up with the dynamics of a living language. The same issue surfaces with the presidents use of 'crusade'. Most people look at crusade as a campaign with extra zeal, not necessarily religious at all. Unfortunately the other side and their apologists are taking it literally in in its Archaic form of a Christian Holy War. All just MHO. Message 16363557 regards Kastel acute and cuddly Canadian

To: westpacific who wrote (10046)	9/22/2001 8:38:45 PM
From: get shorty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

I'm not sure if I agree with this premise: >>>"Despite the evidence of Barbara Olson that the hijackers were armed with 'knife-like weapons,' it is almost inconceivable that each of the four skyjack teams did not have at least one firearm.>>> It's been disclosed that dozens of air-phone and cell phone calls were made by passengers during their tragic flights. Thus far, none of the calls made public, have made any reference to a firearm. They've been consistent in their description of knives, box cutters, and "bombs". Presumably, the hijackers would draw everyone's attention to a firearm, if they had one, in their efforts to control the passengers. When I learned the hijackers were armed with knives and such, I tried to understand just how they were able to take control of the passengers while outnumbered and poorly armed. My speculation turned up at least one scenario: The passengers had no clue what the hijackers wanted. Money, political asylum, media attention to their cause, what was their agenda? Perhaps they were told if they just stayed put and cooperated, no one harm would come to them. Similar to how if one were robbed at knife point, you'd hand your wallet over if you were reasonably certain that your life was not in peril. One of the passengers of flight 93 learned via air-phone, from his wife, that airliners had been flown into the WTC. He told his wife that he and others were going to jump the hijackers. Once the agenda became clear, he and other passengers, took action to prevent it. I count the crew and passengers of flight 93 amongst the many, many, heroes that have been borne by the WTC tragedy. regards, -shorty