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: Maurice Winn who wrote (14040)	8/23/1998 11:02:00 AM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice, this time of the year, the thread normally goes OT to baseball. It seems to have switched to heavy discussion about stain on dress. So should those posts be OT OT? Then another change in direction to definition of terrorism. Are we now at OT OT OT? Are discussions about US politics really a sub group of the above or should it be a separate OT OT OT OT? Since it is totally impossible to comprehend what this thread is talking about anymore and what I am responding to, may be this post should start with OT OT OT OT OT? At this rate, by Wednesday, every message on this thread with read like the following: "OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT" Ramsey

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (14040)	8/23/1998 11:31:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 152472

Maurice - OT Since people in the USA sponsored a terrorist attack on New Zealand citizens in the Tower of London would you all suggest NZ bomb some USA interests? There is a little difference from the bin Laden (sp?), although I would agree that the issue is far from black and white. The difference is that very few Americans, if any, are actually involved in the planning of IRA bombs or training the terrorists. If any Americans were actually involved and Britian knew about it, we would arrest them. The same cannot be said of terrorists in the Sudan. Clark PS Ain't it great. This OT thread was started by the person who is normally most on-topic of anyone in the thread. PPS I stand corrected in regards to political assassination and the IRA, but I still contend that in general it is something that most terrorist organizations, including the IRA, do not generally practice. If the IRA had wanted to, I'm sure they could have killed a PM eventually.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (14040)	8/23/1998 3:25:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

OT***Maurice, of course the bombing by the "real" IRA in Omagh was horrifying. And given the recent peace accord, and its huge margin of voted approval on the Catholic side especially, was a frontal assault on the very notion of democracy. In my opinion it is now incumbent on members of the main IRA to turn in their dissident former members who still bomb. Not an easy step no doubt. Rather hazardous to one's health, until their back is broken. I think its gonna start to happen though. Hope so. And to be blunt about it, I very much hope that the Irish American community will now stop funding Irish terrorism. Part of the trouble I believe is that the fund raisers mislead many groups about the purpose and application of the funds they are raising. But I'm sure they don't need to bother with some US groups. I do think we should do more about blocking fundraising by such groups in this country. It may happen now, under the banner of blocking funding for Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. But be extended to funding for the "real" IRA as well. As it should be. Anyway, have you not noticed that the US just a few days ago refused to issue a visa to Bernadette Sands something-or-other, who with her husband is thought to be a leader of the "real" IRA, through the cover of the group of 38 or some such. You may also have noticed that they are thinking of suing [!!!] some of the local Irish press for repeatedly blaring their suspected leadership roles in their pages in recent days. Things seem to finally be getting a wee bit hot for them in their own communities, thank the Lord. So perhaps there's hope. Re: Sudan. The Sudanese fundamentalist gov't is a committed supporter of terrorism against the West in general and the US in particular. Their human rights record with even their own peoples is also right up there with the very worst. We have pressed them, diplomatically, to stop supporting terrorism for years with almost no success. They style themselves as the center of Jihad against the West, and against moderate, non-fundamentalist Moslem governments. If, as the non-fundamentalist Sudanese gov't in exile in Egypt claims, there is another chemical weapons plant elsewhere in Sudan, I say blow it up too. Self defense. How are we all gonna feel when they set off some Vx attack and kill 100,000 innocent people in a terrorist attack somewhere. It's just the kind of thing those types are planning. And its not the type of thing we're planning So I'm on our side. It is, unfortunately, a type of war. Not one we wanted. And not against their whole country. But against facilities of mass terror within it. And against terrorist base camps and groups there or in Afghanistan. Now, if their whole country wants to declare war against the US, well, good luck to them. Pacifism doesn't work Maurice. Although it may work quite well for NZ. As long as it has the US to protect it. Doug