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: michael97123 who wrote (152960)	11/30/2004 10:43:36 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Agreed, Bodansky is over the top. A real alarmist. But the warnings about OBL having been given Saudi religious approval for the use of nuclear weapons seem real enough. I have absolutely no idea how a WMD attack on the US can be deterred. I suspect some private warnings have been made, but I have no idea what form they may take.

To: michael97123 who wrote (152960)	11/30/2004 10:49:29 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

On further reflection, Bodansky has had some very insightful moments. Carefully read this 1999 press conference in which he nailed the future of terrorism and OBL's intentions. That he now thinks a WMD attack is imminent and that the Jerusalem Post is willing to publish his views concerns me very much: The text of the press conference4 is too long to post here but I think that reading it is definitely worthwhile: freerepublic.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (152960)	11/30/2004 1:00:06 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There is a flaw in this thinking. Attacking Mecca would be viewed as a serious strike at the Islamic Religion, not Arabs. At least 2 Billion Muslims of all Nationalities, both Shiite and Suni, would see that as an attack on their religion … not a political strategy. It would be seen as equal to bombing Abraham to stop the Monotheistic religions that sprang from his existence. When you say ‘Saudi Wahabis’ have given the OK for OBL to use weapons of mass destruction to attack America, I have some reservations. What Saudi Wahabis have done this? Like Sistani who speaks for most of the Shiite Muslims, there are Suni Scholars who would be listened to by most of the Suni Muslims. These persons, or person, might also be a Wahabi. The location of such a person would be in Mecca. The spokesperson would be an Imam of a Meccan Mosque. However, there are Wahabi scholars on every corner of every village in Saudi Arabia. I have been concerned that we have not heard a very vocal condemnation of Al-Quaida activities coming out of Mecca, so I don’t have a clear picture on what all this means. If this ‘Fatwa’ has come from Mecca, we should be demanding to know who it came from and what the more revered scholars, if they exist, have to say about it. Saudi is corrupt and the King regularly imprisons scholars who give a Fatwa that threatens him. Such a Fatwa would threaten his stability. However, he is in a precarious position these days, trying to keep the lid from flying off of the boiling kettle of fundamentalism in Saudi.