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 : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2824)	4/17/2002 5:45:34 PM
From: Paul Kern	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

Zeev, I suspect that Thomas is a paid propagandist. I've asked him to out himself and post his real name and the name of his employer but he has ignored me so far. I really think he is very afraid of the hated jews. Paul

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2824)	4/18/2002 1:31:00 PM
From: Thomas M.	Respond to of 32591

Yet another blind personal attack from you. It is revealing about how little you actually have to say. Sharon won the libel suit, furthermore, the URL in your post does not mention anything about Sharon Are you illiterate? <<< He was a registered Democrat when he was appointed to a federal judgeship in New York in 1979. In that capacity his talent for spin control emerged into public view when he presided over a libel suit brought by former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon against Time magazine. The newsweekly had reported that Sharon encouraged or incited Lebanese Maronite militiamen to massacre between 800 and 2,000 Palestinian men, women and children after Israeli forces surrounded the Sabra-Shatila refugee camps in West Beirut in 1982. Sharon, who already had been charged by an Israeli government commission with "indirect responsibility" for the massacre, had no chance of winning the suit, but Sofaer told the jury to render separate verdicts on each of three questions: whether Time's account was accurate; whether Sharon had suffered damages as a result; and whether the Time account was I 'malicious --meaning that the magazine had rushed to print with charges it knew to be erroneous or distorted. Jury findings that Time's account contained inaccuracies and that Sharon's reputation had suffered as a result of the account made headlines for the first two days, obscuring the final, key finding that there had been no malice, and therefore no libel. Sharon then returned to his political career in Israel claiming that even though he had lost the lawsuit, the New York jury had "vindicated" him. >>> Tom