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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (1775)	5/30/2003 5:15:02 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

It was not necessary for the PNAC to take direct action. Any crisis would have served their purpose if it was hyped enough. I would like to think they assumed that the results would be less extreme, say more in line with the Trade Center bombing years earlier. TP

To: Greg or e who wrote (1775)	5/31/2003 2:03:01 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Greg, My paranoid pal says it is highly unlikely that you don't receive compensation from the "intel community". You are simply too perfectly willing to be a shill for fascism to not be being paid to make the effort. No one can say the engagingly disingenuous things that you do without getting bribed for it, or at least hoping for compensation. What do you think about this little production number: takebackthemedia.com ******** Re: Specific knowledge coupled with a failure to respond would constitute criminal negligence. Maybe you do have a clue. Yes, George Bush most certainly was criminally negligent and he should be behind bars, and we should throw away the keys. He's a criminal. Why aren't you prosecuting him, instead of persecuting those of us who are spreading the truth? Do they pay you well? I think it's pretty cute, your little childish game. But not in the least bit convincing. Ciao!

To: Greg or e who wrote (1775)	5/31/2003 12:36:19 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Specific knowledge coupled with a failure to respond would constitute criminal negligence. OTOH if only a general awareness that "something big" was on the horizon then what would you have had them do? That, of course, is the key question. Even AFTER 9/11 the left wing is screaming, with some but not total justification, over detentions without trial, over Patriot Act provisions, over many of the steps that are being taken to protect national security. Can you imagine the hue and cry, with TP in the forefront and X right on his heels, if on 9/1 the US Dept. of Justice had started rounding up Arab-looking people on mere suspicion that they might be planning some sort of terrorist attack and started interrogorating them without attorneys, or without letting them remain silent? Naturally, the suspects wouldn't have talked. And since the only weapons used were regular box cutters, perfectly legal to possess, there would be nothing to hold them on except suspicion that they might be considering some day committing a crime. TP and his ilk would have gone ballistic. Charges of racism, illegal detention, and all. And even if they had successfully averted 9/11, they could never prove that, and TP et al would claim that the threat of any attack was all made up to justify the illegal detentions, and would have come up with some conspiracy theory about it with, of course, Bush et al painted as the bad guys. With people like that, there's no way to win. So you just do the right thing and ignore them.