Yes,that's all reasonable. Certainly, when Bobby Fisher went to play chess in Belgrade, it didn't mean the USA was supporting the Serbs. Nor would the USA be supporting terrorism if $ill Gates started donating money to Osama. I own a Cat Stevens CD and don't think of myself as supporting terrorism. Nor when I fill 'er up do I think I'm supporting terrorism though I'm aware that that money could well be doing just that.
Our dopey government has arranged things so I that that happens. Same in the USA.
For 20 years I have said that if CO2 is a problem, [or terrorism], slash taxes on cyberspace and internally produced things and whack big taxes on imported carbon.
Unfortunately, in NZ, the government whacks on the taxes but doesn't also cut them. So all we get is economic destruction [but at least, so far, our terrorism casualties are low = one person killed by a purported ally [France] and Ernie killed over trade union disputes. nzherald.co.nz
But what matters is the result, not the actual cash flow. The terrorism is coming from Saudis, Pakistanis, Egyptians and Palestinians. But then there's Beslan, Bali etc so it's pretty much all over the map.
My point is really that bombing Iran or invading it won't solve terrorism. Such an action should be seen as merely continuation of the Iraqi war to a major source and as backing Israel's existence and stopping Iran having a nuclear bomb inventory. Pakistan hasn't passed on a nuke which has been used [though I wouldn't bet too much that they haven't got one or two stashed somewhere, years ago, before the borders were tightened. Somewhere actually IN the USA.
It puzzles me why an Iranian nuke would be such a worry but a Pakistani one isn't. Perhaps it's delivery distance by rocket which makes the difference and stated intentions by those nominally in charge. Delivery by shipping container wrapped in opium seems a more reliable shipping method than by rocket.
Mqurice |
