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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (26650)	9/12/2001 11:03:27 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

What happened was a mass murder committed via multiple air piracy. The hand that set the murderers in motion is yet unknown. I have a few ideas about retribution once we do know........ JLA

To: Lane3 who wrote (26650)	9/12/2001 11:13:09 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Why ask Neo? I wonder how these ladies would have answered your question. wnd.com These guys love God, they adore God and must be sent to God as quickly as possible for their sake and ours.

To: Lane3 who wrote (26650)	9/12/2001 11:18:26 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You raise excellent questions. I would say that the various insurgencies have territorial aspirations, and therefore are not quite pirates, although they are not yet states. The analogy is to civil war, although it is not always the case that the focus is on a single regime, as in pan- Arab or pan- Muslim insurgencies. Of course, that is merely having the disputed territory be in several hands, and therefore is only a slight variation in the civil war model. Extending this, then, the United States, as the status quo power, has become the target of many such insurgencies, above and beyond the more immediately targeted regimes. It is regarded as a sponsor of the offensive regimes, if only because of relationships through an alliance, as in NATO. Thus, it has become a common foe of otherwise disparate insurgencies. In addition, there are several states which have been sympathetic to, or exploitative of, the hostility of the insurgents. The Soviet Union, East Germans, and Bulgarians were active in support of terrorism in the early '80s. Iran, Iraq, and Syria have their own proxy factions among the Palestinians and elsewhere. Cuba, Libya, and other nations have had some involvement in terrorism. Therefore, we have both state sponsorship to concern us, and the terrorist network, beyond the hostilities of individual insurgencies. In instances where the insurgents are operating within the territory of an ally, we need to help the ally to fight them. In instances where the insurgents have safe haven in the territory of a sponsor, we need to take an aggressive stance against the sponsor, and regard the situation as closer to normal belligerency. In instances where the insurgents go to neutral territory, we need to regard ourselves and our allies as having rights to deny them sanctuary, while not necessarily being overtly hostile to the regime that maintains neutrality. Terrorism is more than unconventional, or guerrilla, warfare. It is prone to target civilians, and completely confuses the battle lines. However, there are often camps, training facilities, and cadres to target and destroy. Taking the court- led approach is not prudent. We must take the war to them........

To: Lane3 who wrote (26650)	9/12/2001 11:48:53 AM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Then we have the question is who is the enemy and how does that fit into the model." It is not piracy, as the focus of a pirate is on the booty. The attack on us is politically motivated and the terrorist icons such as bin laudin, whether guilty or not, are hoisted on the shoulders of sympathizers around the world. The situation is very delicate. Over the past several years pockets of anti-American extremists in many Middle Eastern countries have been gaining momentum. The reasons are multiple and sensitive. So, who are they and what makes them extremists. They are Muslim men probably in their early twenties who still believe they can change the world. They have been encouraged by like minded people to fight against world injustices. They are willing to fight and die for a noble cause and believe they will be rewarded for eternity if they give their life in the effort......the breach (and thus the extremism) enters in when they agree to target even one innocent. This is a violation of the human condition and definitely forbidden in Islam. The delicacy of the situation resides right here. If Bush can clearly define this breach, he can make his appeal to the world on this basis, while continuing to present a strong military commitment to resolution. Moderate people throughout the world will support the effort. However, if innocent people suffer or die in other parts of the world in the process of vengeful retaliation, we lose any and all world support over time, and terrorism as a viable tool continues to spread.

To: Lane3 who wrote (26650)	9/12/2001 1:01:26 PM
From: X Y Zebra	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Seems to me that we got shifted into a different model yesterday Was what happened a crime? Or was it war? Or was it something else, like piracy? Yes we have shifted. What happened yesterday was an act of war. Well organized and executed by a terrorist organization that while at this time there is no 100 % hard evidence that it was them, recent past history points at them (i.e. Bin Laden and his "al Qai'da" organization). Specific and symbolic targets were hit, i.e. The WTC = Capitalism. The Pentagon = Military, while I do not know for sure, I suspect that the plane that went down in rural Pennsylvania, was aimed at the White House = Political Power. Their calculated aim is not only that of destruction but to hit hard at the American people and our way of life with the horrifying scenes we all witnessed in real time. In short to instill terror right here at home and break our feeling of safety. a188.g.akamaitech.net terroristwatch.tripod.com It seems silly to be at war with bin Laden, one person. On the other hand, we certainly aren't at war with Arabs or Muslims, as some have suggested. The closest I can get to identifying an enemy is the terrorist network. That seems to best fit the piracy model, although there are war elements to it. The enemy is the terrorist network. It is war it is not piracy. Piracy implies a robbery, and a degree of personal gain. War are open attacks, while terrorism is not a nation, they pursue an idea. The leaders have been capable of using those ideas to convince their followers to easily give up their life in the pursuit of their aim. They have been capable of crossing borders in the process of unifying people against the US. In a way, the terrorist network is stronger than a single nation. They have clearly defined their enemy and that definition is what this country stands for. We are their targets In the past there have been countries that have harbored these savages. They are savages because they have no regard for human life. We saw that yesterday. They have proven to be an effective executioners of this agenda. The aim of terrorism is to destroy and instill terror on the victims of their attack. To a degree, we have allowed these people to proliferate because we have allowed these nations to continue protecting the terrorists. I understand that it is a difficult to clearly identify and go after these terrorists, but what alternative do we have? Will we continue to simply witness what we saw yesterday? The time for talk is over. We have no choice but retaliate once we have learned with a degree of certainty who was the mastermind of the event. If a nation state is sheltering them, we give them a reasonable time to produce them or to co-operate with the US military to get to them. If they do not, then I for one, fully support a surgical attack to destroy the objective. I would not be too concerned with the unfortunate "collateral damage". They killed thousands of innocent people and they did not seem to be too concerned. NO, I am not lowering to their level; it is simply a matter of survival. I am perfectly aware the poverty under which these countries live, but yesterday's act will not change that. On the contrary, it will worsen that condition. It will be a long, long time for me to support any sort of foreign aid, before such resources are used in this country first.