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: Bilow who wrote (32760)	6/20/2002 12:22:32 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I thought you might like den Beste. I think you are not correctly assessing the Israeli questions. The South Africa parallel does not really fit. The Jews are a majority in Israel, the Hamas et. al. make no bones about wanting to destroy Israel and replace it with a Jew-free Arab state, and the Israelis have basically conceded a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and are just fighting over the nature of that state. This makes the moral arguments (which as Tim says, you count and ignore as it suits the moment) a good deal more shifting than the SA example. Since the military argument is a no-contest, the moral arguments, by limiting the actions of the stronger party, do have a strong effect on what happens at the end of the day. The Palestinians have reverted to maximalism and once again it's likely to cost them dear. They will doubtless achieve some greater escalation -- but every time they do, the Israelis are also 'permitted' a greater counter-escalation. There are many degrees of action between doing nothing and a full ethnic cleansing campaign that would cause the US to dump Israel. For instance, if the Pals succeed with a mega-attack, the Israelis will be 'permitted' to begin clearing out some buffer zones near the new wall. The Palestinians have fewer resources to wait out this contest, and evidence that time is not really on their side may change their minds about the tactic they're using. Judging from the petition that appeared in al Quds today, it is happening already.

To: Bilow who wrote (32760)	6/20/2002 7:24:40 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Suppose that you are fighting against a terrorist campaign? How can you win? As with any warfare, there are only three ways: appeasement, extermination, or destruction of enemy morale. Those are NOT the only means of fighting against terrorism.. What he seems to forget, or ignore, is that terrorism is effectively a war of ideas, with one party willing to use extreme means to undercut the morale of the opponent. The terrorists HAVE undercut our morale in one important manner.. They have left us frightened to live our lives. But they have to have the support of THEIR local population in order to carry on THEIR war upon us. So it's NOT their morale we're trying to undercut, but that of an indifferent population who will support them so long as their own daily lives are not disrupted. They need recruits, money, and logistical support to carry out their acts. Eliminating this support base effectively returns the terrorist to merely someone with radical ideas who lacks the means to carry out his beliefs. And we have to understand that, with regard to extremist Islam, we have to COMPLETELY SUBJUGATE the society that harbors and nurtures it, Saudi Arabia (and Iran's government). Only by purging and replacing the current system that exists there with something more moderate and tolerant, will we undermine the extremist factions. Replacing the current system with one that is more accountable to the average person in the streets is all important. Because inevitably, the desires of the many will outweigh the extremism of the few. Unless you're Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud, who created and used the Ihkwan (Muslim Brotherhood) as muslim "shock troops", only to exterminate them at the Battle of Sabila once he had captured the reins of power. naqshbandi.org geocities.com Remember that whenever extremists and fanatics are organized and actively violent, there is a financial and political power behind the scenes which is providing them the support they need. Now we have to figure out who is behind the support for Al-Qaida (other than Bin Laden) and these other groups. Hawk