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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (196146)	2/12/2007 3:25:06 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793927

There isn't any doubt that a hand grenade can destroy mass...........lots of mass. I don't know much about them other than there are several different types that can be throw by hand, from a launcher or by grenade guns......fragmentation, concussion, percussion, smoke, riot control, incendiary, stun, sting, impact stun, anti-tank. And certainly I haven't had the pleasure of throwing or launching one, but there is no doubt in my mind that they massively destruct. At least that is my opinion. I saw this the other day on several news reports. Look at this one: fotophile.com. Now that is massive. Like everything else, we are expected (by who knows makes up these rules and why aren't they challenged?) to follow certain guidelines when talking about something so serious, but also like everything else, words do have meaning. Take the word "is." To some it means one thing and to others something completely different. Same for the term "weapons of mass destruction." Thanks to Bill Clinton, there is no need to limit ourselves in how we define something. And I couldn't agree with you more Maurice..........the U.N. and its weapons inspectors are obviously confused and have a limited and narrow scope of what is. Your John Howard isn't stupid enough to paint himself into that kind of corner. ;)