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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (15927)	1/9/2002 1:49:36 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But the issue here is to argue that those of us who disagreed with Halkin and his friends (I'm withholding judgment on Kramer until I read the book, but it looks increasingly as if he makes this argument) were in, some fairly serious sense, contributing to 9-11 is simply unacceptable (I have much worse terms in mind). John, I haven't read Kramer's book either, just his shorter pieces. But I gather the gist of his argument centers not around "contributing" to 9/11, but failing to warn us about the possibility of a 9/11 attack, downplaying the risks of such an attack, and calling those who did warn us (such as himself and Daniel Pipes) nasty names. This is not quite the same as "contributing". MESA's duty to warn us all of the risks of Islamic terrorism is clearly less official than, say, the CIA's, but their credibility does depend on telling us the important stuff. They clearly muffed it here. Question is, did they just not consider it their business, did they have blinders on, or did they purposely suppress mention of it due to PC concerns? That is the case for Kramer to make.