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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (31076)	10/6/2001 1:39:06 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I am still on the 'side' of declaration of war I thought that you would find the article interesting. I used Neo the first couple of days to help me work though the issue and I, too, came down on the side of war. I agree that the messages from the Administration are confusing. Perhaps they're of mixed mind. Perhaps they're trying to cater to the different voices inside the country and in the international community. Perhaps they just want to keep their options open. I would prefer that they sort it out, too, but I recognize that this business is complex and that they have many balls to juggle. I'm glad to see the subject discussed so intelligently in the Post. Karen

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (31076)	10/8/2001 11:03:13 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

More definitional issues. Tucson, Arizona Monday, 8 October 2001 Terrorists or freedom fighters? By Holger Jensen Who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter? That question will bedevil our government and its uneasy allies as they pursue what George W. Bush promises will be a global war on terrorism. Osama bin Laden was a "freedom fighter" when the CIA-backed mujahedeen were waging war on the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan. Now he's a terrorist condemned by all but a few rogue nations. Yet in his own perverted logic he's still a freedom fighter, seeking to free the holy land of Saudi Arabia from "occupation" by American troops, from American "exploitation" of its oil and from a "corrupt" and "godless" Saudi royal family. He also is trying to free Iraq from U.S. sanctions and aerial bombardment; Palestine from Israeli occupation; Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Algeria and other pro-Western Arab nations from their secular rulers; Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians from domination by Christian Serbs; Chechen Muslims from rule by Russia; Filipino Muslims from rule by the Catholic majority; Kashmiri Muslims from Hindu rule; Muslim Uighurs from Chinese rule and Central Asian Muslims from their post-Soviet bosses. Bin Laden's alliances with other terrorist groups give him a seemingly endless list of causes. Pakistan, which supported the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan and, by extension, bin Laden's al-Qaida network of terrorist bases, has turned against both, winning Bush's gratitude and a host of financial rewards for joining the American-led coalition. But Pakistan still provides bases, arms, funding and military support for Muslim "freedom fighters" in Kashmir, whom India calls "terrorists." Ironically, we were on the same side as bin Laden in supporting Balkan "freedom fighters." When Slobodan Milosevic was in charge of what's left of Yugoslavia, the United States armed and trained Bosnian Muslims and later Kosovo Albanians battling the Serbs. So did bin Laden, who sent several hundred mujahedeen to establish a European beachhead for his holy war. The Serbs couldn't understand why we were helping what they called Muslim "terrorists" - not only terrorists but drug smugglers who funded their struggle for a Greater Albania by bringing Afghan heroin to Europe. And they were outraged when we bombed Yugoslavia to save the Kosovo Liberation Army from defeat by Serbian forces. There is no question that the KLA worked hand-in-glove with the Albanian mafia, which was heavily involved in the drug trade, a fact conveniently overlooked by Washington as long as the Albanian guerrillas were destabilizing Milosevic's regime. They became "terrorists" only after the KLA metamorphosed into the National Liberation Army and turned its sights on Macedonia. The Kurds are "terrorists" when they wage war against the government of NATO ally Turkey but "freedom fighters" when they take on Saddam Hussein in northern Iraq. The Shiites in southern Iraq also are "freedom fighters" in opposing Saddam but risk being labeled "terrorists" if they align themselves with neighboring Iran. The Palestinians regard themselves as "freedom fighters" against Israeli occupation, a view shared by all the nations of the Middle East. Although most Arab and Islamic countries have offered at least moral support for Bush's war on terrorism, they draw a clear distinction between bin Laden's brand of international terrorism and Palestinian "resistance." Yet suicide bombings by Hamas and Islamic Jihad - such as the ones that blew up a disco crammed with Israeli teen-agers and a pizza parlor filled with mothers and children - were heinous terrorist acts criticized by many in the Palestinian community. There has been considerable debate among Palestinian clerics and senior officials in Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority about what is a legitimate target. Some say all Israelis are fair game because they represent a "foreign occupying power." Others say only settlers and the Israeli military should be hit, with attacks limited to occupied territory - the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Arafat says Israel proper and Israeli civilians should be left unharmed. He claims to have no control over the Islamic terrorists of Hamas and Islamic Jihad; Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says he does and calls him "our bin Laden." But Sharon failed to persuade Bush to reject Arafat's offer of help in the war on terrorism, and the Palestinian leader is now a member of the coalition. Will we go after Arafat if members of his own Fatah organization commit some terrorist outrage against Israelis? And will we go after Syria for hosting the so-called "Rejection Front," a coalition of Palestinian groups opposed to Arafat and opposed to making peace with the Jewish state? Both actions would set the Arab world against us, exposing us to more terrorism, perhaps, than bin Laden could manage. Bush has to be very careful that his war on terrorism does not come to be seen as a war on Islam, something that would play right into the terrorists' hands. He also has to be careful not to get sucked into other people's liberation wars simply because the governments they are fighting call them "terrorist." But it is hard to see how Bush can avoid it after telling all the nations of the world: "You're either with us or against us." Some of those who are with us will doubtless ask him to put his money - or his troops - where his mouth is. * Holger Jensen is International Editor of the Rocky Mountain News in Colorado. azstarnet.com