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.

Strategies & Market Trends : India Coffee House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JPR who wrote (11565)	10/15/2001 9:02:48 AM
From: JPR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12475

The Tailbone Fighters At last a noble word of gratitude from the Sheik on the feeble Kuwaiti support Afghanistan will get some kind of a Government after all this is over. The reconstruction of Afghanistan will begin sometime in the near future. But the basic problems will not be solved, unless the following are addressed. The Madrassahs in pakistan are the assembly line producers of tailbone fighters. They are funded privately and by some Govts. The poor Pakistani children mainly go there for food and shelter in exchange for their malleable minds. The education is narrowly focused on Koran. The graduates are robots programmed to hate the Jews, the Christians, the Americans, the Westerners, the Hindus and the infidels. They also promise trouble to muslim nations who align with the Americans. For them, there is no greater glory than to kill, maim and destroy the infidels, wherever they are, and their civilization. Martyrdom in the name of religion guarantees a place in heaven and a reception by nubile virgins. How is US Govt stop the funding of these madrasahs from the countries of the Islamic world on whom US depends for oil? Some countries accept US protection and at the same time do not control anti-American terrorists or activities. They get a vicarious and cynical pleasure at seeing the terrorists attacks US. That attitude is written all over their faces. It is a good idea that the US made no distinction between the terrorists and the passively or actively sponsoring countries but engaging them in the context of dependence on their oil is a difficult proposition. As long as we need their oil, they got us by the neck and our influence is limited. There is a paucity of gratitude for America in the Arab countries. The very existence of some Arab countries is not possible but for the American intervention during Desert Storm. It is assumed that these countries are passively supporting the terrorist cells by not regulating the money supply to these cells and not actively prosecuting them. As long the rulers are not destabilized, they won't act on the cells. Due credit is not given to America in Arab countries with regards to its acts in Europe to save the muslims. The think tanks have to come up with ideas to induce the cooperation of the Islamic countries with Americans in homeland security. How can US Govt. change this hate-curriculum to a liberal education in madrasahs, unless that country's Govt and madrasahs cooperate? How is the US Govt. going to address this widespread hatred in the muslim world for the infidels? It appears that certain countries are not interested in controlling the terrorists, fearing that they may turn against the rulers. Why would they want to stick their hands, head and neck into the hornet's nest as long as the hornets don't bother them when left alone? When the export-only terrorism doesn't cause them any domestic problem, it is not a priority for them. We heard a noble voice against the feeble support for Americans from the former foreign minister from Kuwait. Does US want to accept the malignant policies from our perspective in the interest of an uninterrupted oil flow? How could US get oil, control terrorists in the oil-producing countries, protect the oil-producing countries from invasion by the neighboring countries, all this without an ounce of gratitude? It is a tall order. They export oil and terrorism, the latter may be unintended, though perilous to the importer. A quick fix of the Afghan problem as recommended by the pakis is not in the US interest. The longer the campaign is carried forward, the better it is for US and we will have an idea as to how events shape up. Forcing things to work by way of organizing an Afghan government early in the game may be a short-term solution. US should handle this problem from point of view of 1) humanitarian aid, 2) nation-building by all countries of the world, 3) UN-administered temporary Govt. as a prelude to multi-ethnic Afghan Govt more as a result of an evolutionary process than an installation, 4) complete abolishing of an Afghan military, 4A) UN military force drawn from countries acceptable to Afghans until 5) establishment of local Afghan police for law and order, 6) guaranteeing protection from foreign invasion, 7) total elimination of terrorists from the face of the earth, 8) Covert and overt operations on a continuous basis to combat terrorism wherever it is. 9) not falling prey to combating terrorism selectively in the enemy countries and permitting it in the so-called friendly countries. (They are not friendly, but pretend to be friendly.) 10) profiling people on their behavior rather than on their national origin etc. 11) Establishing a national identity system for all people 12) Not yielding to pakistan on Kashmir, (haven't they got money for their services) 13) Leaving the Kashmir issue as it is (poking this issue will aggravate the situation)