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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (20714)	4/22/2004 11:03:24 AM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 81518

And talking about opinions I agree with, I very much agree with this interpretation of the circumstances associated with 9-11 (although not entirely). xymphora.blogspot.com >>>Thursday, April 22, 2004 We have enough information now that we can figure out some of the conspiracy behind 9-11. There were three groups, each with differing amounts of information - the mainstream of the Bush Administration, the Pentagon, and the actual plotters of the attack..... In summary, the Bush Administration thought the attack was coming but thought it would be a normal hijacking. They didn't see any profitable way to stop it, and thought they could use it to make Bush look presidential while giving them an excuse to attack Iraq. They were deceived into their views in part by the Pentagon, who prepared for an airplane attack against buildings while downplaying the risk of it ever happening (and in part by the FBI, who withheld information). NORAD's normal automatic protective actions were subverted. The American plotters of the attack were able to tell the hijackers that they were safe from interception, which they could only do if they had very high connections to the Pentagon and other parts of the American government.<<<

To: sea_urchin who wrote (20714)	4/22/2004 1:36:06 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81518

> what really terrifies me about W is his religious fanaticism interventionmag.com >>>And the most disturbing aspect of this choice is that it is made in the context of complete moral certitude. Bush believes that he was “called” to seek higher office, and that “I’m here for a reason.” As Professor Singer says, “Bush has made his religion a matter of public interest by referring to it frequently and asserting that it influences his public decisions.” Quoting Howard Fineman in Newsweek, “faith ‘helps Bush pick a course and not look back.’” The trouble with religious faith as the basis for public policy is that it is not based on realism. More than this, if God’s intention as revealed to the president is that a particular course of action should be chosen for the country to take, it cannot therefore be challenged by public reason. In the president’s way of thinking, morality is religious in nature--his religion--and not subject to real debate beyond this. Worse still, that path will not submit to facts as they are discovered by mere mortal inquiry. What we are left with is a true believer guiding the ship of state in the direction God has chosen. The fact that the helmsman has a compass and a map is of no practical value. I think this means we are in for a bumpy ride.<<<