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: epicure who wrote (13403)	12/9/2001 12:24:57 PM
From: Hawkmoon	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? Hi X... It's my understanding that Al-Qaida has never sought to exert their "independence", and are thus not a national movement of liberation, but an transnational non-state actor (ala "SPECTRE" from James Bond fame) bent upon advocating a religious ideology centered around extremist Islam. Thus, it would be my contention that they are undeserving of "state" status. Had they been advocating the overthrow of some neighboring government to Afghanistan, and been led by individuals from that nation (eg: Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan, or more applicable, Xijiang province in China), I could see the argument being made that they are a national liberation movement. This would not excuse the deliberate targeting of civilians, or the taking of hostages (as occurred by hijacking US airliners and taking the passengers hostage) as part of a scheme to use them, and the aircraft they were on, as weapons against 50,000 potential civilians in the WTC. The Kurds, being a nationality, and not just merely an ideological group, can be considered a movement of national liberation, and so long as they do not deliberately target civilians, and carried arms openly, as well as wearing some form of uniform, they could be considered combatants under international law. But we know from past experience that some of these national groups (including some that have been supported by the US) DO illegally target civilians, rather than military targets of the "occupying power", as an attempt to subvert the authority and legitimacy of the prevailing government. And in such instances, the government in power can legitimately treat them as terrorists. Now of course, this is all part of international law, and not particularly binding or enforceable, except by politico-economic sanctions, and/or UN resolutions. And unless enforceable, any such law or treaty is only worth as much as the paper it's written upon. And this applies to the Palestinians as well. I don't deny them their right to resist Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (although that occupation has markedly decreased since the establishment of the Palestinians Authority). Where I take umbrage is when the PA cannot control those non-state actors within the PA, such as Hamas and Islamis Jihad, or even worse, use them as "deniable assets" which seek to target Israeli civilians and not Israeli soldiers. Under ANY PART OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, it is illegal to target civilians. And any government, Arafat's PA included, which permits such groups to operate from their territory, can be considered guilty of harboring terrorists and thus, an acceptable target for retaliation. Btw, this would also pertain to a nation/government which willingly harbors drug-traffickers and protects their operations within their borders. Hawk