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: tekboy who wrote (30667)	5/24/2002 8:28:42 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

. . . off that danger means disrupting that infrastructure, and that's what should be top priority now. Top drawer. Exactly right.

To: tekboy who wrote (30667)	5/24/2002 8:33:56 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I remember reading a story from some correspondent who interviewed the Special Forces people who went in and did the job in Afghanistan. The grunts said they had a difficult time at first because the Northern Alliance leaders did not want them to go anywhere near the front lines. They told our guys that if they got shot, they were afraid that the US would pull out, as we have done before. This really hurts us, because it reflects what our enemies think of us. Ben Ladens attack on us was based, partially, on his estimate that we were cowards who would not respond as we did. The Arabs still think this of us, and it makes them bolder in attacking us.

To: tekboy who wrote (30667)	5/24/2002 11:22:27 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

the threat from al Qaeda isn't some generic upwelling of feeling from the street; it's a danger posed by a few thousand individuals linked together by a discrete, if flexible and resilient, organizational and financial infrastructure This implies that al Qaeda won't really be influenced by whether our response is encouraging or discouraging from their point of view; only the blows we actually land will make any difference to them. I don't feel that I know enough of their MO to be sure of this.

To: tekboy who wrote (30667)	5/25/2002 3:27:09 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

since disrupting al Qaeda will require the help of countries that don't want us to be aggressive on Iraq. And what about those countries, (Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), which don't want the US to be successful against al Qaeda? They support it. Where does the US start dealing with them? There is something skewed in the general picture. These middle east centers vomit hate against the west and the US, in particular. The rhetoric is of the same model as the Nazis pre WW2.. The "oldest ally" won't give the US cooperation on investigating the criminals who murdered 3000 citizens and says it's OK to pursue al Qaeda in Afghanistan providing, of course, the US doesn't use any useful part of the infra structure in Saudi. Pakistan constantly double crosses the US in its efforts in Afghanistan. Iraq, Iran and Syria give al Qaeda transit and support. Al Qaeda is the military arm of a totalitarian movement aiming to take over the countries stretching from the west coast of Africa right into the western Pacific and which wants to change the life of Ameica and Europe and if it can't do that, kill the inhabitants. There are out of this vast population enough replacements for the few thousand al Qaeda that the US can kill or capture. The approach has to be more fundamental than killing or capturing the operatives because the movement's goals are more fundamental than just murdering a few thousand New Yorkers. That post Jochen put up today from the German commision for defense of that country's constitution tells us practically everything we need to know about the islamist movement's aims in Europe and the murders of modernist mullahs and scholars and of jews, christians. animists, etc, elsewhere in the world tell you of it's ultimate goals. I'm cranky tonight. Not well. Doesn't lead to tact: These guys are the same old assholes as before that made such a mess of Germany and Russia pre WW2. Different clothes and more ignorant, is all. Ajami is tactful, but does he say anything different? Did those two Iranian women say anything different? Does your view of the islamist message tell you anything different? frank@takeemattheirword.war

To: tekboy who wrote (30667)	5/25/2002 4:40:26 AM
From: Doc Bones	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

disrupting al Qaeda will require the help of countries that don't want us to be aggressive on Iraq. And what about countries, and perhaps provinces, that really don't want to be bothered by it all? - Doc nationalpost.com Not up to Ontario cops to detain suspected terrorists, Eves says By Louise Elliott The Canadian Press, May 24, 2002 OTTAWA (CP) -- Ontario Premier Ernie Eves says it was not up to provincial police to detain suspected members of an al-Qaida terrorist cell who, his government claims, recently left the province under police pressure. Eves said Thursday that police had no evidence the men had committed any crimes and suggested the matter was the responsibility of the Immigration Department. "I'm not an expert in that field and you'd have to ask the federal immigration ministry why they didn't (detain them) if there was sufficient evidence," Eves said after a meeting with Prime Minister Jean Chretien. In fact, federal anti-terrorism legislation passed last year gives police and other security forces the power to arrest, detain, eavesdrop on and seize the financial assets of suspected terrorists without laying charges. Eves said he learned of the so-called "sleeper cell" Wednesday - the same day his security minister, Bob Runciman, blurted the information to reporters, prompting questions about why police would let suspected terrorists escape. Eves said he didn't know the current location of the suspects, described by Runciman as "foreign terrorists." A spokeswoman for Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said Thursday that detention of suspected terrorists is an RCMP responsibility. Suzanne Thebarge said she could not confirm reports Cauchon knew nothing about the sleeper cell. Eves said he doesn't know where the suspected members of Osama bin Laden's network went after leaving the province under intense surveillance by provincial police. He refused to comment when asked whether provincial police were working with RCMP or CSIS personnel when the suspected terrorists left. "I'm not going to get into details about the operation of the OPP, I think that's for the OPP to respond to," he said. On Wednesday, the RCMP also referred questions to provincial police, who refused to comment. The RCMP did not return phone calls Thursday. At the Ontario legislature in Toronto on Thursday, opposition members said Runciman may have broken national and provincial security laws with his "off-the-cuff remark" revealing the incident. Liberal MPP Michael Bryant said the comments were "inappropriate" and may have alerted other terrorists to police methods and information. Bryant called for an investigation by the province's attorney general to determine what laws, if any, had been broken. However, Eves defended his minister. "Some people are surprised, I guess that Mr. Runciman was as open and direct as he was, but I think that too is needed if you look at what's going on in the U.S. right now." Eves referred to recent criticisms that U.S. President George W. Bush failed to disclose information about a terrorist threat before Sept. 11, when al-Qaida members hijacked planes and flew them into New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands. Doc@Canadianfivecentsisworthevenless.gov