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: Hawkmoon who wrote (13401)	12/9/2001 11:51:58 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am interested in your "non state actors"- who is more likely, and who more understandably, will fight a war of terrorism than people with no country? They cannot fight conventionally since they have been denied territory, and therefore a conventional nation/state military. I'm not really thinking of the OBL group here- but I am thinking of the Palestinians and the largest (I think) stateless minority- the Kurds. You have defined the field so that the landless cannot acquire land without being criminals- if your words are to be applied broadly. Perhaps I misunderstand you.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (13401)	12/9/2001 2:14:47 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>They are really illegal belligerents, with no identifiable uniform, and who are given to carry arms in secrets, as well as deliberately targeting civilians.<< This seems to be such a tangled web. I am curious about the underlying supporting entities of the illegal belligerents. For example, I have read that the Palestinian suicidal attackers' families are monetarily compensated. I'm assuming the PLO had found some way to launder the money that goes to the families. If it can be shown for example that the Al-Quaida received training and funding from Iraq, even though they are considered "illegal belligerents" under international law, couldn't they be considered paid mercenaries of states such as Iraq? Would our response militarily against Iraq be justified on that basis? I just heard this morning that we have surveillance and intelligence that proves the terrorists were being trained using a Boeing 707 at a facility in Iraq. Could not the same military justification be used by the Israelis in any attack against the PLO?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (13401)	12/9/2001 3:58:12 PM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Well, practically speaking, I'm guessing that most Al Qaida 'soldiers' in Afghanistan (as opposed to cell members elsewhere) are Pakistani. I tend to doubt the US will prosecute hundreds or thousands of these madrassas boys2men; it could put the allied Musharraf in an untenable situation with his people. But it certainly is an open question, considering that keeping them out of action could have a positive impact on the tensions in J&K. I can't help but think, for the Pakistanis eager to go to war, that a parallel to the movie character "Ernest" is apt. Perhaps the "Holy"wood version would be "Abdul Goes to War"...