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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (21458)	2/13/2003 9:04:23 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27756

Muslim loyalties February 13, 2003 If bin Laden's latest audiotape is indeed the precursor to another horrific terror attack on the United States, then American Muslims had best decide quickly to whom and what they are loyal. The first rule of wartime survival is to know your enemy. That's a lesson America learned the hard way at Pearl Harbor. To their credit, the politicians of that day only needed one horrific lesson – the result, regrettably, was Japanese internment camps: "From 1942 to 1946, the United States government imprisoned more than 110,000 Japanese Americans, including more than 70,000 U.S. citizens, in camps called internment camps. The United States and Japan were at war, and U.S. officials believed, with little evidence, that Japanese Americans threatened national security." – World Book Encyclopedia Whether or not we agree with World Book's characterization, we should all note well the words "with little evidence." Mr. bin Laden's terror missives have repeatedly made it clear that Muslims worldwide – including those living inside the United States – have a duty to overthrow violently the American government. Internationally, that is the goal of such warfare. Domestically, it is the textbook definition of treason. American Muslims have raised barely a whimper of protest to bin Laden's call for their participation in terrorism and treason against their homeland. I'm not talking here about phony front groups and their paid public-relations mouthpieces. I'm talking about real Muslim leaders – like the Rev. Louis Farrakhan – or like the imam down the street leading prayers and religious studies at your local mosque. Where is the anger against bin Laden among American Muslims? Where are the protests? Where are the fiery sermons in local mosques urging believers to denounce terrorists hiding in their midst or to expose them to the FBI or the police? Where is the religious rage against those who have murdered the innocent in pursuit of personal political power? Where are America's Muslims in America's time of need? America echoed in its deeds the words of Jesus Christ toward Muslim immigrants who came to this country: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." America gave food, shelter and safety from the despotic Islamic hell many had fled. We gave respect to their culture and honored their traditions and holy days. We did this because it was the right thing to do. What has been America's reward? Egotistical, empty words spoken by religious bigots and racial conmen who claim – without grassroots refutation – to speak for America's Muslims. Worldwide hatred by despotic Arab regimes and murderous, profiteering dictators – many of whom rely on American consumers for their oil dollars. Cowardice and loathing by our European "allies" profiting in the arms trade. Self-serving smear campaigns by greedy, mindless celebrities who actually believe that lying for a living – for what else is acting? – qualifies them to conduct world affairs. Self-serving political grandstanding by domestic politicians so eager for power that they would sell out the nation to govern during its dying days. It is a testament to America's intrinsic goodness and greatness that we have shrugged off this treatment by our enemies. Only a great nation, secure in itself and basking in peace, could quietly endure such treatment. It is frequently said that the terror attack of 9-11 "changed everything." It did not – it merely confused everything. It is the next terror attack – whether in days, weeks, or months – that will change everything. That is the point at which confusion will coalesce into anger. America's eyes will be opened and we will clearly see our enemies. Confusion about the World War II coalesced into anger at Pearl Harbor. That is what will happen in post 9-11 America. The current generation and its leaders are not smarter, more ethically pure, or more secure than Americans who experienced Pearl Harbor. We are their children and grandchildren. When the war begins in earnest, we will do what they did: We will fight to survive, and we will act preemptively against our enemies. This is not a threat toward or a call for violence against American Muslims. It is a courtesy wake-up call. Every four years Americans pause to watch our president take a solemn oath to "preserve, protect and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." In fact, every American takes this same oath by virtue of citizenship in this great land. Bin Laden has cast American Muslims' duty toward Allah, and that may well be. But in the trenches, American soldiers still sing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." The time of decision for America's enemies has arrived. Choose well. worldnetdaily.com

To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (21458)	2/13/2003 12:27:13 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 27756

Hysteria runs riot; networks fuel the fear Where is our citizen war footing? Sixty years ago, enterprising and patriotic Americans saved tinfoil and bacon grease to help defeat Hitler during World War II, heeding the old Office of War Information motto, "Use it up. Wear it out. Make it last." Some pockets of panic in California did develop immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941. However, when Japanese balloon bombs drifted near the West Coast or Nazi U-boats were spotted off New Jersey, Americans learned how to extinguish an incendiary bomb or spot the silhouettes of enemy submarines. They were not making a run on the local supplies of bottled water and duct tape in a hysteria somewhere between snowstorm panic and the last shopping day before Christmas. But then, the good folks on the home front were not pummeled by a 24-hour media with time to fill. "Are you ready?" asked ABC News yesterday, trotting out a "Good Morning America" home-improvement editor to demonstrate how to turn a laundry room into a fallout shelter with duct tape and plastic dropcloths. "Duct tape sales rise amid terror fears," noted CNN. MSNBC offered mixed messages, saying that "jittery Americans were stocking up for disaster" while offering an online poll that said 71 percent of the respondents were "doing nothing" to ready themselves for terrorist attacks. Some were already weary of the fear-mongering. "I'm not afraid of these jerks," said one Westwood One Radio Network host yesterday. His listeners concurred, many saying they would not join the race to hoard duct tape. Others used the stuff to shore up their agendas. "Washington is urging people to prepare for chemical attack by purchasing duct tape, while it fails to provide fire departments with funds for protective suits or bioterror detectors," a New York Times editorial said yesterday. Though the Federal Emergency Management Agency revamped its "Are You Ready?" citizen-preparedness guide after the September 11 attacks, the media pounced upon the same information rereleased Friday as "breaking news." TV reports were immediately emblazoned with orange "high alert" banners and rife with talk about poison gas, microbes and imminent threats. Even pet owners were advised to pack an emergency kit for their dogs, complete with "bottled water and food supply." Syracuse University broadcast analyst Robert Thompson says news organizations have slipped into the instant "bunker mentality" they adopt during bad weather. "Americans are subjected to split-screen broadcasts which show the terrorist alert symbol on one side and weather and fashion on the other," Mr. Thompson said yesterday. "What do they focus on? Many buy into fearful hype." Indeed, some news coverage has centered on consumer panic and the sudden appearance of "homeland security" sections in local hardware stores. "The trouble is, if we connect the dots between some of the really serious news events — the possible dissolution of NATO or divisiveness within the United Nations — then that gets scary," Mr. Thompson said. "We have reached a new era which requires us to go on living life knowing the 'big event' may be just around the corner," he said. "That's what people do in other countries." News coverage in dire national moments is still a work in progress, however. "There is a massive difference between a crisis and a catastrophe, and in the case of a bioterror attack, the effect of media coverage on public perception could be the deciding factor between the two," notes Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio Television News Directors Association. The group issued its own practical guidelines on bioterrorism, terrorism and war coverage two months ago, urging members to "present the facts as clearly, objectively and dispassionately as possible." Charles Figley, a Florida State University trauma psychologist who has studied media disaster coverage for two decades, faults federal offices for issuing guidelines open to interpretation by both the media and the public. "Ideally, you want the vast majority of people to be on alert, but not dramatically alter their daily routines," Mr. Figley said yesterday. "People should already have an emergency plan in place anyway for bad weather, industrial accidents or the like." Changing disaster scenarios requires flexibility, he said. "We learned there's no magic bullet, no one way to modulate public information to prompt people to do the right thing, at the right time," Mr. Figley said. "But if unsubstantiated warnings go out, people don't pay attention after a while washtimes.com

To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (21458)	2/17/2003 8:51:17 PM
From: David in Ontario	Respond to of 27756

I don't think it has much to do with the Muslim populations in those countries (France, Germany and Belgium who oppose removing Saddam "at this time"). They don't have that much political clout. The "Common Market" now the "European Union" is seen by France and Germany as their own play thing, and they want to be the main players. When Chirac was mayor of Paris he helped himself to public funds, and now that he's president, perhaps he's helping himself to even more moola from the national treasury. To my mind he's just another common thief, and not the statesman he so badly wants to seen as being in the eyes of the world. Why France is a permanent member of the UN Security Council is a UN joke. Their history in WW2 didn't make for a good resume. The French general Charles de Gaulle went running like a scared rabbit to England when Germany invaded, and Churchill had the common sense to order the Royal Navy to sink the French Vichy government's navy in North Africa during the early part of WW2. Perhaps the French are still sulking about it? President Bush and those allies that are standing with him are right and the peace nicks have got it wrong (again). If Clinton and the UN had dealt with Saddam several years ago, then the 5 foot 1 inch lunatic running North Korea would be as quiet as a mouse. Saddam has almost single handedly undermined the credibility of the UN, yet many countries are too afraid to draw a line in the sand. There have been years of abuse of the UN resolutions by Saddam and any more talking is useless. "Oh, if we only had more time to talk - he'll come around" seems to be the cry of the peace movement. The only thing this thug understands, like Libya's Gadaffi (in 1986), is force. If Saddam is left alone - and the "talking" continues - then there's an even greater chance that chemical and biological weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists. It won't matter a damn then when the peace movement activists say "Oh, we're sorry, perhaps we should have done something sooner". The talking is over - time to get the job done and to remove Saddam - with or without the UN (which is really just a forum for countries to express their dislike toward each other). David. Ps. Why are there trees on the Champs-Élysées (a main avenue in Paris). So that the Germans can march in the shade. Ahahahahahaha ahahahahaha