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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (13974)	8/21/1998 10:00:00 AM
From: straight life	Respond to of 152472

It may be that the WTC bombing of '93 caught the FBI napping; but that since then they've come up to speed; and they've been tracking this Saudi for some years, a man who reputedly financed the WTC bombing, among others and that 1.since they caught some inside fellow in Nairobi who 2. warned them of further bombings in the very near future,the various services thought it imperative to act NOW.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (13974)	8/21/1998 10:05:00 AM
From: Drew Williams	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

*OT* Gregg, I must respectfully disagree. While I, too, think Bill Clinton showed incredibly bad judgement and a lack of character by having a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, it is silly to suggest that he approved, orchestrated, and scheduled these attacks solely to distract us from his other problems. Unless Secretary of State Albright, Secretary of Defense Cohen, etc., are all fibbing to cover Bill's butt, it was done when it was done because they all believed the Afghanistan camp was full of people they believed would serve the world better from oblivion. (This is not to say that he did not orchestrate the announcement to best political effect. A live Presidential speech at 5:30pm EST was guaranteed to be on everyone's news broadcast.) One could argue that the tremendous resources given the World Trade Center bombing have begun to pay off with better intelligence. According to this morning's news, the same intelligence reports that targeted these guys helped prevent a third embassy bombing. To bring this back on topic just a bit, if the bad guys had been using one of Qualcomm's CDMA phones, there might not have been any useful telephone intercepts. To my knowledge, there have not been any reports of anyone breaking the CDMA encoding.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (13974)	8/21/1998 11:47:00 AM
From: The Prophet	Respond to of 152472

I'm sure a bright guy like you remembers the lessons of Neville Chamberlain. If we had to wait for definitive proof prior to engaging terrorism, we would be paralyzed by the impotence of our own inaction. A calculated attack against a group that has admitted to fostering terrorism against this country can hardly be considered capricious. No offense, but I sincerely hope that you consider whether your comments are influenced by your portfolio.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (13974)	8/21/1998 2:43:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, I also respectfully disagree. OT*** The President's decision, upon the recommendation of his top national security advisors, was to treat this network of terrorists as an enemy group that has not only openly and repeatedly declared a type of war against the United States; it has also committed multiple acts of terror. THEREFORE THE GROUP should be targeted, and to the extent possible (consistent with other national security considerations) DESTROYED. Unless and until it surrenders. Evidence? The Palestinian captured at Pakistan's border with Afganistan admitted to Pakistani "questioners" a personal role in the Embassy bombings, and stated that bin Laden's group had planned the attack. Reportedly, we also had spy satellite communications intercepts which indicated the same thing. And also indicated imminent plans to blow up other Embassies and American facilities. I am sure there is also lots of other evidence, perhaps less absolute. (e.g., bombing methods, etc.) In addition to that, this same bin Lauden had openly and unambiguously declared a holy war of terror against Americans, whether or not even connected with the government, in a Fatmah published in London one or two days before our counterattack. This was only the most wide ranging declaration of war against America; it followed several others. That's plenty for me. More than enough. I hope that if our satellites show people scurring around that camp in Afganistan, that we hit them again. Let's not be ambiguous about it. We have declared war on that group. Let's kill as many as possible. As for collateral damage to Afgani's .... well, maybe they should think twice about harboring sworn outlaw terrorist enemies of the US. Offense against terrorists works a whole lot better than defense. We were already maximally targeted, without restraint. The important thing is to try hard to continue to build bridges to moderate Islam, and work harder at that. (More pressure on Netanyahu wouldn't hurt one bit.) This cannot of course be total war, and we need to continue to work very hard to minimize so called collateral damage. But it isn't a civilian police and criminal court matter either. Its a form of limited war, seems to me. Doug