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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (159660)	12/7/2003 9:19:51 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 164684

LOL !

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (159660)	12/14/2003 6:14:13 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 164684

Reprinted from NewsMax.com Saturday, Dec. 13, 2003 11:08 p.m. EST 9/11 Bombshell: Mohamed Atta Trained in Baghdad A bombshell memo written to Saddam Hussein in 2001 and recently uncovered by Iraq's new coalition government shows that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta was trained in Baghdad to attack the U.S. The memo, authored by Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, is dated July 1, 2001, and describes the "work program" undertaken by Atta at a base in Baghdad run by notorious Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, reports London's Sunday Telegraph, which obtained the document exclusively. If authentic, the document would be the first explicit evidence implicating Iraq in the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, since it makes a direct reference to what appears to be the 9/11 plot. In one passage, the Iraqi intelligence chief reportedly informs Saddam that Atta had demonstrated his capability as leader of the team "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy." Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, the paper said. But Dr. Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine. "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he told the Telegraph. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks." In October 2001, two Iraqi defectors told U.S. intelligence that they helped train militant Muslim fundamentalists to overcome U.S. flight crews, using hijacking techniques never seen before 9/11, at a south Baghdad training camp known as Salman Pak. One of the defectors, Sabah Khodada, subsequently told PBS that he believed the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by "graduates of Salman Pak." In what could turn out to be one of the greatest intelligence blunders of the post-9/11 era, the CIA and FBI dismissed Khodada and other eyewitness accounts of the hijack training regimen at Salman Pak, though their story was corroborated by satellite photography showing the fuselage of the airliner on which they trained. The Telegraph report makes no mention of Salman Pak or the accounts from eyewitnesses suggesting the camp may have played a role in 9/11. Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: Al-Qaeda Saddam Hussein/Iraq

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (159660)	12/15/2003 8:08:10 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Fifth Southern Democratic Senator Plans Retirement Louisiana Democratic Senator John Breaux said today that he won't seek a fourth term in the U.S. Senate next year. Breaux is now the fifth Southern Democratic Senator to announce plans to not run, putting the Democrats in a tough position heading into 2004. So far Democratic Senators Bob Graham of Florida, John Edwards of North Carolina, Zell Miller of Georgia, and Fritz Hollings of South Carolina have all said that they won't be running in 2004. Bush won each of these states in 2000, suggesting that the Democrats face an uphill battle to retain these seats. On the Republican side, so far Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles and Illinois Senator Joe Fitzgerald have both said they won't run in 2004. The Illinois seat should be a layup for the Democrats, while the Republicans should have an edge in retaining their Oklahoma seat. There are of course a variety of interesting races developing elsewhere, with South Dakota (Daschle), California (Boxer), and Nevada (Reid) all likely to be battlegrounds. With the Republicans currently holding a 51 to 48 majority (one independent) in the Senate, it's looking likely that they will pick up at least a couple of seats in 2004, particularly if Bush runs strong.