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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: grusum who wrote (78504)	10/15/2001 2:39:03 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

worldnetdaily.com Mexico: The next Lebanon? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com We've all heard and read the reports recently about how the Mexican government is actively promoting illegal migration into the United States – even providing survival kits to those intending to cross the Rio Grande and make their way to the "promised land." Mexico makes little or no effort to police its border with the U.S. It minimizes the threat the refugees pose to the United States. It even suggests its overflow population should be welcomed into the U.S. Therefore, a recent news item originating in the San Diego Union-Tribune was something of a shocker for several reasons. Mexico's National Security Adviser Adolfo Aguilar Zinser made the sensational announcement that Islamic terrorist organizations have a presence along the U.S. border and may be making contacts with Mexican guerrilla groups. "We have evidence that organizations or people linked to Islamic organizations could have a presence here or be passing through," Zinser told a local radio program. Though declining to identify the specific groups, he also said the groups could have indigenous guerrilla ties. The announcement was not intended to alarm U.S. authorities, but rather to quell fears in Mexico about the possibility of guerrilla attacks. "Our duty is to find them and send [them] away from the country so they don't put roots down here or try to use our territory as a haven," he explained. While Zinser wouldn't name names, the newspaper El Universal and other Mexican dailies did. They said the Islamic militants trying to form a base of operations in Mexico are tied to Hezbollah, the Syrian and Iranian-backed terrorists who established a base in Lebanon and have used it ever since to launch rocket and guerrilla attacks on Israel's northern border. And, despite the reassuring words of Zinser, the Mexican media reports make clear the true purpose of the Islamic terrorists in the country – to carry out guerrilla activities in the United States. But even Zinser acknowledged the potential threat to the U.S. "The geographical proximity with the United States puts us on alert so that we are not the passing-through point for any of these organizations," he said. Because this report got little media attention in the United States – and next to none in areas far from the border – it is safe to say this is an issue not on the radar screen in Washington. But it's clear to me that the Islamic terrorists currently focusing their attention on destroying Israel are taking their fight to what they consider the ultimate enemy – "the Great Satan" of the United States. Let me tell you, folks, this is not an enemy the U.S. Border Patrol can handle. There's been debate in a few circles lately about whether it's time to use the U.S. military to stem the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S. from south of the border. I've never been one to suggest the U.S. military needs more deployments. It is already vastly over-deployed. And there is always a civil liberties threat when the U.S. military deploys on domestic soil. But the one true objective of the U.S. military – the one defined by the U.S. Constitution – is to defend the borders of the country. Personally, I think this is a much more sensible deployment than those in Macedonia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and dozens of other remote places the U.S. acts as policeman of the world. Meanwhile, as our troops patrol borders in these and other countries, our own borders are as porous as a sieve. The illegal immigration into the United States in recent years has had devastating effects on the infrastructure of our country. It has been a demoralizing factor for millions of Americans – especially those who live closest to the problems. But all that is nothing compared to the horror and anguish that Americans will experience when the first truck bomber makes it across the border and delivers his load at a vulnerable U.S. target. It's nothing compared to the terror Americans will experience when the first airliner is blown out of the sky by hand-held, guided, American-made Stinger missiles from south of the border – or north. It's nothing compared to the anger Americans will experience when Katyusha rockets start hitting American cities the way they routinely hit Israeli towns in Galilee. Sound far-fetched? With so little attention on Mexico, it could well become America's Lebanon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com and writes a daily column.

To: grusum who wrote (78504)	10/15/2001 4:47:15 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

4 carrier groups allow them to be that much more capable of response lest one be successfully attacked. But I agree it is a large force and widespread just to be involved with Afghanistan. What do terrorists have to lose? Well a terrorist who is suicidal rarely has anything to lose anyway except the success of his mission, which by defensive techniques and security we should be trying to make as unlikely as possible. But if we up the scale of reprisal/retaliation he may lose his support base eventually. Never mind the Martyr concept and anger factor. Once people realize that the cost of aiding that sort of person or training him is way too high, then support will drop off. The trick is to balance the retaliation so that it does not appear to be random or cruel and spawn more terrorism where people are not weighing the cost/benefit. There are always forces that are opposed to fundamentalism and random terror who wish peace and stability. The thing to do is while not making them mad dogs, get in house opposition to carry out ops against the radical groups. Fight fire with fire. Despite the vaunted reputation for fatalism and suicidal tendencies of Muslim warriors, it is apparent from the Russian Campaign which lost a scant 17,000 Russians in ten years, the Iraq-Iran wars and the present Kashmir and Afghani conflicts, that in fact 99% of Muslim fighters are quite self preervationist thank you very much. Careful trench warfare has been waged for years in northern Afghanistan, hardly the suicidal mass wave attacks that even the Chinese were used to using. Losses have been moderate. During the Russian campaign in Afghanistan it was apparent that the Afghan warriors techniques were based on stand-off, shoot and scoot war, not any kind of suicide mission. Even with the Iranian reputation for sacrificing wave attacks in their battles with Iraq, they lost no more soldiers than Iraq, and at any rate it has not been the only country to try that technique who had far less reputation for wasteful gallantry. (Pickett's Charge) You rapidly run out of suicide warriors. If the enemy is determined and calculating he can exploit that tendency and make you lose if you try it. In real war it rarely succeeds. Men are resourceful if they are in tight situations, but rarely that inventive if they are not coming back anway. I note that the trench warfare in Afghanistan is different from WW1 in that the short effective range of the AK47 does not allow effective sniping. The Afghans do not waste bullets on sniping, contrary to reputation. This may be because it allows both sides to reduce the labour necessary to build trenches in that rocky soil. It is co-operative war. It is also war that is material scarce. Good mortar attacks would devastate those meagre trenches. But this would drive the distance apart to more than a klik and make attack more difficult for both sides across open terrain. EC<:-}