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 : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (20980)	10/5/2001 6:21:41 PM
From: 4rthofjuly007	Respond to of 52237

like, no kidding Forgive my sarcasm, but heck, I think that it is abundantly clear that these folks have, are and always will seek to kill Americans regardless of what we do. Bottom line is that there is a 100% chance of more terrorist attacks even if we do NOT strike in Afghanistan. That is what we must get over. The fear of more strikes. I'm just miles from ground zero and I refuse to quiver and look for a purely diplomatic solution because "oh God, what will they do next". We have capabilities of our own. Some are a bit rusty, especially on the human intelligence side but I think we can ramp up on a dime. It's not like they will strike less if we don't go after them. And not neutralizing them with vigilance will only result in strikes of equal or greater magnitude as they grow in strength. Our goal is to neutralize the terrorist threat both domestically and abroad. New terrorist strikes or not, this is what we must do from now on with continued vigilance. Years of poor assessment and poor intelligence resulted in the "success" WTC attack in my opinion. Should have never happened on this scale. I only hope that any new strikes will be conventional and that there are no weapons of mass destruction already on US soil. If there are, I don't doubt for a second that they will be use. "retaliation" or not.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (20980)	10/6/2001 10:42:46 AM
From: Kip518	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52237

ready the nukes? Tactical Nuclear Weapons Deployed 6 October: DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, in a single 70-minuted conversation on September 23, eleven days after the terrorist assaults in New York and Washington, agreed on the deployment of tactical weapons. This is an epic shift in the global balance of strength. Putin gave the nod for US forces poised in Central Asia to jump into Afghanistan to be armed with tactical nuclear weapons, such as small neutron bombs, which emit strong radiation, nuclear mines, shells, and other nuclear ammunition suited to commando warfare in mountainous terrain. In return, Bush assented to Russia deploying tactical nuclear weapons units around Chechnya after Moscow’s ultimatum to the rebels, some of whom are backed by Osama Bin Laden, to surrender, went by without response. DEBKAfile’s military sources place the US nuclear weapons in four former Soviet Central Asian bases: the military air facility at Tuzel, 15 km (10 miles) northwest of the Uzbek capital of Tashkent; at Kagady in the Termez region; in Khandabad, near the city of Karshi; and at the military air base in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan. In addition to the nuclear weapons units, Russian bombers carrying small neutron bombs were moved to Russian military air bases around the border of the breakaway province, in Stavropol northwest of Chechnya, the Godowta base in Georgia to the south, and Mozdok in northern Osetia, northwest of Chechnya. Russian and U.S. military sources refuse to take questions on these startling events. The US is far from eager to actively inject a nuclear element into the war against terrorism and will not be the first to do so. According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the US plans to hold those tactical nuclear weapons in reserve, unleashing them in the campaign against bin Laden only in certain extreme circumstances: 1. To counter a move by Bin Laden’s men first bring out nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against the US force fighting inside Afghanistan. 2. If a chemical or biological assault by the Taliban against Pakistan. 3. Should groups of bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network – either in Central Asia or the Balkans – wield these weapons of mass destruction against US military targets or US nuclear arms in other parts of the world. 4. If using them is the only way to save heavy American combat casualties. debka.com