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

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (62)	7/6/2002 7:57:05 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

Yes Nadine, the piece is something that is a combination of both. That is they are hard on the ISraelis as well as they are calling on Arafat to go also. What the Saudis did in the past is no longer relevant now. For them things have changed because of the threat that they face from one of their own, Bin Laden. After seeing what Bin Laden could do to the US, they have no doubt that Al Qaeda could easily cause havoc to the Saudi monarchy. And hence they are forced to change their tune, such as recognizing the existence of Israel etc. Even though their sponsorship of the peace plan calls for Israel's withdrawl to the 1972 boundaries, it would be interesting to see if they would settle for Israel to move to the 2000 boundary. I am optimistic. I am not so sure about you.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (62)	7/6/2002 9:14:58 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3959

Unless and until we solve the root cause of any problem, we cannot claim victory against terrorism. Would you try to win a "war on hunger" by killing all the hungry people? I don't think so. Then why would you even attempt to win the war or terrorism that way. I think the Algerian bombs that went off during their independence day celebration just goes to show that we cannot say we have won a war on terrorism by claiming a military victory. news.ft.com