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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (61769)	10/8/2002 6:20:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

there is proof of financial connections from wealthy Saudis running through Saudi backs to "firms" that are fronts for Al Qaeda. I don't know if that would be considered evidence of a Saudi government connection to Al Qaeda even if it might be evidence of insufficently energetic prosecution of the effort against Al Qaeda. There is also evidence of Saudi government money, coming from Saudi princes, financing Wahhabi Mullahs in this country and elsewhere. True Wahhabism is basicly the offical sect of Saudi Arabia, but Wahhabi Mullahs and Al Qaeda are not exactly the same thing even if Al Qaida is mostly Wahhabi. IMO, they are in mighty deep with Al Qaeda. Deeper than Afghanistan was, IMO, since most of the money for Al Qaeda comes from Saudis through Saudi Arabia. But in Afghanistan Al Qaeda was so entwined with the government that to an extent it was the government. Osama was defense minister and he and Mullah Omar married each others daughters. Al Qaeda fought side by side with the Taliban, I don't think funding, esp. funding through unoffical chanels and front companies by individual citizens qualifies as being in deeper then that. Tim

To: epicure who wrote (61769)	10/8/2002 6:20:08 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 82486

The Saudi government is not our enemy, even if financial ties to al Qaeda were to be discovered. There are many ways to deal with such without the need for force. As for Iraq, the threat goes infinitely beyond mere financial ties...

To: epicure who wrote (61769)	10/8/2002 6:22:55 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

they should have added something to "excuse" those who, by reason of infirmity, cannot move their right hands over their hearts. And isn't interesting that women have to take off their hats, too. That's pretty nontraditional. House OKs Pledge Bill Reuters Tuesday, October 8, 2002; 1:57 PM The House Tuesday approved a bill reaffirming the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance, making clear its disapproval of a recent court ruling that a reference to God in the pledge was unconstitutional. By a vote of 401 to 5, the House also voted to reaffirm the national motto, "In God We Trust." But though the Senate has approved a similar bill, the measure must now return there for another vote because the House made a minor change. A ruling in June by a federal appeals court in San Francisco that the "under God" portion of the pledge was unconstitutional prompted outrage among U.S. politicians, including President Bush, who called it ridiculous. The court overturned a 1954 act of Congress that added "under God" to the pledge, saying the words violated the basic constitutional principle of separation of church and state. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called the ruling "troubling because its analysis appears to reflect a belief that any religious reference presents an inherent danger to individuals who hear it." The Wisconsin Republican warned the result could be the banishment of all such references from the public arena, which he argued would be inconsistent with any reasonable interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. But Rep. Robert Scott, a Virginia Democrat, said the House was wasting its time. The controversial ruling may be overturned on appeal, but if the ruling is upheld, "then no law we pass will change that," Scott said. Justice Department attorneys are seeking a rehearing on the case before a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California. The House bill includes a provision that anyone reciting the pledge should remove headgear with the right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, with the hand resting over the heart. But the House changed the wording slightly to say that only "nonreligious headgear" need be removed, so that for example a yarmulke, a skullcap worn by Jewish men and boys, could be worn during the pledge. The change must be approved by the Senate before the measure goes to Bush for his signature.