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: philv who wrote (23380)	7/22/2005 10:38:09 AM
From: Taro	Respond to of 81177

I agree. Never believed that Mossad option anyway. Gustave obviously is fully convinced but then again he sees Zionists everywhere. Including in my shoes... Taro

To: philv who wrote (23380)	7/22/2005 11:29:22 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 81177

Phil > such a sloppy operation just doesn't support the Mossad argument That presupposes you would know how terrorist attacks are done? Sure, it appeared to be an amateurish operation, and the investigation even more so. Thus, one is left to one's own imagination or else one can hold Al Qaeda responsible, as the media does, as to what it was all about and why? In my opinion, terrorism is a tactic or, if you prefer, a strategy. It is not an end in itself. Thus it would make sense, as in the past, that those involved state clearly that they did it and why? But there was no-one other than a posting on some or other website to suggest who did it and why. Indeed, anyone could have put such a posting there and for any reason. It is this which makes the whole thing so bizarre and forces me, at any rate, to look deeper for an explanation. >If such covert action is needed to pursue a specific Israeli agenda, it should have been a specific attack. How does this help Israel in its struggle against the Palestinians, and the land grab underway now? How can anyone tie the two together? I don't know what you have in mind? After 9/11, Netanyahu stated that "we are all Israelis now" and I would presume that after Mdarid and London that same sentiment still holds. Nowhere and I restate, nowhere, in the Western press is there any mention of any grievance that any Muslim could possibly have against the US, UK or Israel. Yet the transgressions of these countries against Iraq and the Palestinians are plain for all to see. Indeed, that Israel could take Palestinian land in defiance of both the Palestinians who were born and living there and also the UN is considered quite acceptable. Likewise, on any pretext, that the US could invade Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, grab the oil, mess up the place, is also considered fine -- because they are fighting "terrorists". That one word makes every crime, every transgression legitimate. Now I don't know who is putting bombs in London? Some people say it's angry Iraqis? It may be, they certainly have every reason to be angry. Others say it's a false-flag operation designed to frighten the British people so that the UK can institute ID books or bring about other legislation. They could be right? But I think it's a bit much for just that. I just don't know? But what I do know is that these terrorist attacks further the aims stated in the PNAC manifesto of the neocons and in the absence of any real evidence pointing to anyone else, in my book, they, and those that work with them, stand accused.