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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (206623)	10/15/2004 2:57:22 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572551

Saudis Blame U.S. and Its Role in Iraq for Rise of Terror By JOEL BRINKLEY Published: October 14, 2004 RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 13 - Seventeen months into a shadowy terror campaign that has killed more than 100 people, numerous Saudis express less anger at the insurgents than at the United States for its invasion of Iraq, the signal event that they say touched off the attacks inside the kingdom. In interviews over the last week, the Saudis condemned the terror attacks, aimed primarily at foreigners, but called them a small inconvenience that has not forced them to make significant changes in their daily lives. By contrast, they expressed unremitting disdain for the United States. Many Saudis appear to have reached a form of intellectual accommodation with those carrying out the violence. When asked about the attackers' goals, they assigned varied motives but often one that is consistent with their personal, social or political concerns. The interviews were with nearly two dozen Saudis, from a bejeweled prince of the royal court, sipping coffee at a cafe, to a truck driver wearing a frayed caftan, clutching a bag of onions at a local supermarket. "The attackers want the government to give more money to the people," said the truck driver, Jaber al-Malky, 24. But Prince Mubarak al-Shafi said, "This certain sect of people is unhappy about alien ideas, particularly about the democracy that the United States wants from nations all over the world, especially Saudi Arabia." Behind all this lies an ever more complex Saudi-American relationship. Its foundation, of course, is the shared need to buy and sell oil. But the fact that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi has become an issue in the presidential campaign, as has the accusation that the Bushes are too close to the royal family. No one here seems to care about any of that. Instead Saudis unceasingly complain about American support for Israel and the war in Iraq, which they call unjustified, though Saudi Arabia allowed American troops to operate here during the war. Government officials also say they deplore the Bush administration's call for more democracy here. "It's none of their business," one of them said with scorn. Saudi Arabia's leaders offer conflicting opinions on the local terrorists' motives. Within hours of each other on Sunday, the Saudi interior minister and a half brother of King Fahd offered polar analyses. "Unemployment creates one of the cornerstones of terrorism, and the poor who cannot get food on their table resort to other means," the king's half brother, Prince Talal bin Abdul Aziz, said at a conference in Amman, Jordan. In Kuwait, Prince Nayef bin Abdel Aziz, the interior minister, told reporters he doubted that unemployment was the reason for the attacks here, according to an account in the Arab News daily. The prince, Arab News added, noted that many arrested suspects were well-paid employees. Saudi Arabia has a long history with terrorism, beginning when Islamic militants seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca in 1979. After that, the attacks came years apart and never became a consistent part of the fabric of life here, until May 13, 2003, when 25 people died in three coordinated suicide attacks on residential compounds here. That started a terror campaign that continues. That first attack and many that followed were attributed to Al Qaeda. continued............. nytimes.com

To: tejek who wrote (206623)	10/15/2004 4:24:06 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572551

Re: ...this article discusses the controversy over Kerry's comments re. Mary Cheney. What I find interesting is that Edwards brought up the same issue two weeks before and Cheney thanked him for his comments. Well, below is the transcript of Senator Edwards' comment: Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy. cnn.com Do you see the nuance with Kerry's gauche innuendo? Edwards used thrice the word "love" and once the words "respect" and "embrace"... which naturally struck a chord with Cheney. Here's Senator Kerry's out-of-the-blue comment: "And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian," Kerry continued, "she would tell you that..." But when was the last time Sen Kerry talked to Mary Cheney, if ever?

To: tejek who wrote (206623)	10/15/2004 9:57:56 AM
From: Suma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572551

Tempest in a tea pot is correct. At this juncture the opposition to Kerry is grabbing for straws. I read a post on Politics for Pros about the drinking water Kerry selected. God, is anything sacred.. or not out there for dissection. ANYTHING to make the other guy look bad, sacrifice ones daughter's privacy etc.

To: tejek who wrote (206623)	10/15/2004 9:58:07 AM
From: Suma	Respond to of 1572551

Tempest in a tea pot is correct. At this juncture the opposition to Kerry is grabbing for straws. I read a post on Politics for Pros about the drinking water Kerry selected. God, is anything sacred.. or not out there for dissection. ANYTHING to make the other guy look bad, sacrifice ones daughter's privacy etc.

To: tejek who wrote (206623)	10/15/2004 11:22:19 AM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572551

Brian, this article discusses the controversy over Kerry's comments re. Mary Cheney. What I find interesting is that Edwards brought up the same issue two weeks before and Cheney thanked him for his comments. I saw it live, and his thanks was a bit terse. I think he was pissed as hell, but didn't want to discuss his daughter in a debate. You'll notice he totally gave up his response time to just say "thanks" for your comments. Have you seen Edward's wife's comments? She shows she's a trashy person over and over again. Her BS statement that the Cheney's must not accept their daughter's sexuality. This is why the remarks were not sincere at all, they were meant to dredge up personal items into the compaign. One side of the Kerry campaign is trying to be "sensitive" about it, and the other is shooting with both barrels. Brian