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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jamey who wrote (30008)	7/24/2005 10:37:48 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Respond to of 361840

No. Al qaeda is very low tech ... unless they get a bomb from Eastern Europe ... something that is harder than it sounds. Al qaeda doesn't have the expertise, material or resources to build their own. Don't we wish Kerry was President? ... securing loose nukes was a priority for him, but not for Bush.

To: Jamey who wrote (30008)	7/24/2005 10:38:32 PM
From: tsigprofit	Respond to of 361840

In the event of an attack like this on the US - where over 10 US cities are destroyed - IMO - only - we should destroy all Islamic countries. Start with Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Cairo, Tehran, Islamabad, Damascus, Beirut, and the next top 20 cities in each country. Extreme? NOT IMHO. You are talking about the end of America. IF that happens, I vote we take them out with us. "Kill them all - let God sort them out" - circa 1980 Soldier of Fortune Magazine >> Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S. Terrorists, bombs smuggled across Mexico border by MS-13 gangsters Posted: July 11, 2005 12:22 p.m. Eastern © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com WASHINGTON – As London recovers from the latest deadly al-Qaida attack that killed at least 50, top U.S. government officials are contemplating what they consider to be an inevitable and much bigger assault on America – one likely to kill millions, destroy the economy and fundamentally alter the course of history, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin. According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups. Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market. silver-investor.com Anyone think there is any truth to this? Santiago

To: Jamey who wrote (30008)	7/24/2005 10:43:08 PM
From: Nicholas Thompson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361840

Is there any way to spot the radiation leaking from these weapons , if they exist? Does the US have radiation monitor teams looking for these weapons or other radiation signatures? I hope so.

To: Jamey who wrote (30008)	7/25/2005 5:26:20 AM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361840

Behold the Power of Google: An Exhibition of Conservative Paranoia Exhibit 24: Joseph Farah, Crusher of Dissent By Terry Krepel Posted 9/8/2003 How can Joseph Farah top himself after advocating the murder of adulterers? Why, bring back the Hollywood blacklist, of course! Set off by an article in which Johnny Depp allegedly called the United States a "dumb puppy that has big teeth" (though he said later his views were misrepresented and insisted he wasn't trying to be anti-American) Farah called for that draconian solution in a Sept. 4 column. Farah's reasoned reaction to Depp? "I say we should make certain this scumbucket never works in America again." Farah went on to cite the usual suspects -- Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, the Dixie Chicks, Janeane Garofolo, Sean Penn -- and then demanded: "It's time to silence these people. It's time to force them to get real jobs and perform real work and learn the unusual and undeserved blessings America has bestowed upon them." Like the First Amendment right of free speech, perhaps? Farah then goes on to praise the blacklisting of suspected communists in Hollywood in the 1950s: "It was a good thing. It was the right thing to do at the right time in history. And, as America finds itself beleaguered in the world against – literally surrounded by – enemies who seek to destroy it, we cannot allow traitors privileged status in the entertainment industry." Farah followed this up the next day with a laundry list of celebrities he denounces as "dilletantes," "spoiled-brat political activists masquerading as entertainers" and "enemies of the people" complete with allegedly "anti-American" quotes attributed to them. Here are some of quotes Farah cites: * "George W. Bush is a moron" * "I despise him [G.W. Bush]" * "We've got this guy in the White House who thinks he's a man" * "We have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred" * "The man's embarrassing. He's not my president and he never will be either" * "I am afraid of Bush" * "this administration of liars and murderers" What is the overriding theme of these remarks? First, criticism of Bush. Is Farah saying that criticism of the president is "anti-American"? If so, what is one to make of the criticisms by Farah and others of President Clinton in the 1990s? If mere criticism of a president is anti-American, doesn't that make them anti-American too? And don't a lot of those comments sound vaguely familiar? Just substitute "Clinton" for "Bush," and you have the conservative tone of the 1990s. Compare the "He's not my president" remark to those "My president is Charlton Heston" bumper stickers the National Rifle Assocation used to hand out. If one entertainer is "afraid of Bush," Farah spoke of being afraid to go to Arkansas to give a deposition: "Too much fear. ... Too many mysterious deaths." And as for "this administration of liars and murderers," Farah himself has touted the alleged "Clinton body count" that alleges by implication that Bill and/or Hillary Clinton are murderers What Farah -- and, by extension, WorldNetDaily -- really seems to be interested in is not the "fiercely independent" ideals it continually espouses (a cynical and bogus contention, as ConWebWatch has long ago exposed WND's slanted and plagiarized stories and stacked commentary page) but the complete muzzling of views he disagrees with. He wants something more than to "stand up to these pathetic loudmouths in Hollywood" -- he apparently wants to remove a particular viewpoint from the public forum. Isn't that a strange position for someone who calls himself a journalist to be taking? conwebwatch.tripod.com