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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (1180)	9/24/2001 9:55:43 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

My two cents: the newmax material doesn't hold a candle to NYT, WP, and WSJ -- all performing high quality professional reporting. The newsmax stuff is fun to read but I learn a lot more spending my time on my Foreign Affairs articles (and I'm really getting behind...). I haven't read something I could identify the "newmax" material, Ken, so I can't talk to the specifics (I skim read most of the thread postings), but let me encourage you to do what you appear to wish to do, which is to err in the direction of too much information, too many voices, rather than too few. I happen to like some of the wilder stuff and dislike some of the more conventional stuff because the first makes me rethink some things as I consider how I would argue with them. A vote for less exclusion, more inclusion. Leave it up to us to decide what we like. John

To: FaultLine who wrote (1180)	9/24/2001 5:14:45 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Fighting terrorist threat requires will, intelligence Crain's Chicago Business September 24, 2001 By Daniel W. Weil Two hundred years ago, faced with international terrorism on the high seas by the pirates of the Barbary Coast — interestingly, based in Tripoli, the Libyan capital — America responded with the famous phrase, "Millions for defense but not a penny for tribute." Once again, this nation is confronted by pirates, this time in the nature of terrorists. These terrorists are cultural and religious fanatics who, like the pirates of old, seek to remove America's presence and influence from their part of the world. And like their predecessors, they confined their attacks to American interests abroad. Until now. With the bombing of the World Trade Center and Pentagon in a brilliantly planned and executed suicide attack, the terrorists have finally told America in deed what they have been preaching for the longest time in words: You are vulnerable. Two months ago, on a Sunday television program, an Afghan fundamentalist stated, with striking candor, that the next wave of terrorist attacks would come inside our country and that it would be easy to destroy a thousand or even a hundred thousand Americans. Only two weeks ago, Osama bin Laden — long identified as a key financial and political leader of terrorist groups — publicly announced that America was in for a "big surprise." Was no one in our government listening? At some time, sooner rather than later, hearings must be held to find out how such an extensive network of terrorists could carry out such a complex and coordinated plan over a long period of time without our government having a clue as to what was going on. At the moment, apparently to satisfy public demand for some sort of action, the president is focusing on Mr. bin Laden and Afghanistan. But even if Mr. bin Laden is killed and Afghanistan stops supporting terrorist camps, the threat remains just as severe. Terrorism, based on nationalistic and religious grounds, is a major threat to freedom and democracy around the world. The vicious civil war being waged in Algeria by Muslim fundamentalists against a moderate Islamic government, and the threat they pose to Egypt's government, symbolize the extent of their influence. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan declared that the Soviet Union was an evil empire. Two decades later, we are faced with an equally dangerous evil movement. In the case of the Soviet Union, building up military capability was a key element in its ultimate demise. Fighting terrorists is not as definable, but there is one important step this nation must take, and that is giving massive new resources and authority to our intelligence agencies. In the 1970s, following the Senate hearings chaired by Sen. Frank Church, and then in the 1980s with the Iran-Contra hearings, our intelligence capabilities were essentially destroyed. Experienced counterintelligence agents were either forced into retirement or reassigned to meaningless tasks. We now are paying the heavy price for these policies. We do not need to restrict many of our own liberties by imposing overly intrusive security measures within the United States if intelligence agencies are given the latitude they once had to protect our interests abroad. Like Pearl Harbor, the attacks we just suffered should serve as a needed wake-up call to the threat America now faces — the enemy now being fanatics instead of fascists. Daniel W. Weil is a Chicago attorney. ©2001 by Crains Communications Inc.