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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (179850)	9/12/2001 12:28:30 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769667

From another thread: 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........