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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (150671)	11/2/2004 5:49:22 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ewwww, bad words. Do you want to do the full Cheney and insert the F word too while you're at it? I guess that would be your job as local grand arbiter. The "evidence" line is, of course, always ironic when used by W's true believers, but that's another story. You made the ridiculous assertion, I'd say that, conventionally, it's your job to present the "evidence" that terrorists are praying against Bush.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (150671)	11/2/2004 6:10:46 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Osama bin Laden just threatened every state Whether he threatened individual states of the United States of America, or nation-states, is perhaps open to interpretation but in my opinion your interpretation seems wildly off the mark. He threatened "states which attack us" - while at the same time said that neither Bush nor Kerry could deliver security. Unless Bin Laden was making a veiled reference to electing Nader (why would he be that obtuse), he's really talking about nation-states. Nation-states fits far better than the other interpretation, since nation-states (including coalition partners in Iraq, NATO forces in Afghanistan) actually have waged war against Saddam (Iraq) and Al Qaeda (Afghanistan).