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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russet who wrote (13890)	5/6/2002 10:11:32 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 81409

russett, with all the compliments, soon I'm going to get a swollen head. But, thank you very much, nevertheless. I'm glad you enjoy my posts because I enjoy making them. If I wasn't learning and having fun at the same time I wouldn't be around. There is an outstanding problem which I have about the Pentagon stuff and that is,"Did the US need such a big attack on themselves to justify the retaliation which it made?" Yet, I suppose if there wasn't a significant incident, it wouldn't have been credible. Anyway, no-one seems to feel that the retaliation wasn't justified as they may have done if there was only a small "attack". I also guess it wasn't necessary to destroy the whole Pentagon which I imagine would have required a nuclear weapon. I didn't think you said anything stupid here after the party. It is difficult to decide what took place on the basis of small photos and the plane may well have "vaporized". It's just that I can't believe that it did.