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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WhatsUpWithThat who wrote (83)	4/23/2003 5:40:14 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

<<<a) the vast majority of the sites involved are anti-Jewish, white supremicist, or of that ilk>>> The claim I run across so often it's depressing is that anyone who criticizes Israeli policies is "anti-Jewish". Ariel Sharon makes Saddam Hussein look like a boy scout. Jews are just people, and like any cross section of a population, some people are good and some are not so good. It's just as foolish to pretend they're all bad because some are bad, as it is to pretend they're all good because some are good. It's even more foolish to ignore bad behavior on the basis of some kind of bizarre reverse prejudice scenario. IE: because a person is a member of a certain cross section of the population, they are automatically immune to accountability. <<<b) what possible reason would Sharon have for making such a self-harming, inflammatory, statement? I mean, if he's sincere and believes he controls the US, would it be smart to brag publicly about it?>>> As reported, the statement was made in a moment of ire, which has tripped up more politicians than you can shake a stick at. The setting was an unscripted open forum being broadcast to Israeli voters. Add in the ego centric nature of politicians, who can't help bragging about major political coups, and it isn't hard to imagine that sort of slip in an unguarded moment. <<<c) if it was in a cabinet meeting, as reported, are cabinet meetings in Israel open to media?>>> I can appreciate a certain amount of skepticism, but are you really questioning that perhaps not only is the quote in doubt, but the actual broadcast as well? <<<d) assuming it was in an open forum, why does every source come back to the radio network? Does Israel not have print media that attends open government forums?>>> I don't quite follow where you're trying to go with that one. The quote was in "print media", according to the link you posted, in numerous Israeli papers. For that matter, if you want credibility, why would you fall back on an opinion piece by someone who didn't listen to the broadcast? <<<e) why wasn't it reported by mainstream American or European media, media that love to showcase politicians with their feet in their mouth?>>> An interesting question, but a different topic. I would suggest you do some research on the credibility of US media, and the ownership relations of "mainstream" news sources. <<<Re the identity theft issue, that you don't know of an investigation doesn't mean there hasn't been one.>>> Granted. Either there was no investigation, or there was an investigation and the results are not public a year and a half after the fact. There isn't any way to justify the situation in either case. <<<Re Bush and the notification, so you're saying he's smart enough to develop and manage a secret conspiracy with Israel to kill 3-odd thousand of his own countrymen, but not so smart he doesn't realize he should probably act shocked and dismayed.>>> You're off the mark again. If the intent is to create panic, the last thing you would do is respond in a fashion likely to produce calm; such as taking charge, letting the public know something is being done, etc. If you think back to 9/11, I'd be willing to bet most people can remember wondering why it was all over the news for hours and hours, but there was no response from our President. Someone who was aware of the program for the day would have known the days events were only half over with the second plane hitting the WTC. No response is what would be expected of someone waiting for two more planes to hit. Reacting to the second hit is the one thing Bush was absolutely prohibited from doing if he was aware of what was happening. Taking charge of the situation when informed of the second hit is absolutely the one thing the leader of a nation would do when notified of a national emergency. What Bush did was to hang on to a poker face while waiting for two more planes to crash.