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: Dayuhan who wrote (37706)	8/13/2002 8:58:41 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This underscores the fact that the most important aspect of the war on terrorism is not military assaults on unpopular nations, no matter how emotionally satisfying these might be, but the arduous intelligence and detective work of rooting out the terrorist apparatus already entrenched in the West. It goes without saying that this task will be far more difficult if we fail to maintain a solid working relationship with allies in Europe and elsewhere. Wonderful point. Worth pinning on the refrigerator door.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (37706)	8/14/2002 12:29:44 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A Saudi prince living on the Riviera can slip money to terrorists living in Luxembourg to blow up a building in Prague or in Washington DC, with no complicity at all from any government anywhere. As well as shorting re-insurance stocks and airlines prior to 9/11. No doubt about it, the financial aspect of terrorism is oftentimes the most difficult to track, especially with the Hawala system so prevalently used in the Middle East: interpol.int But these folks STILL have to transport TRAINED AND INDOCTRINATED people to their target, or infiltrate them. And these folks can generally can only be trained in nations where their governments are complicit, such as Afghanistan was. The fact that ONLY RECENTLY, the day before Khatami traveled to see Karzai, has Iran turned over 16 Al-Qaeda (to SA, not the US or Afghanistan) is a sigh of a certain amount of complicity there. There is complicity on the part of local warlords in Pakistan who are sheltering Al-Qaeda right now, and quite likely from certain elements of Pakistan's government. But I opine that there is greater complicity on the part of governments in Iraq, Syria, and Iran, and various others where there are internal power struggles, to provide the ability for individuals to find at least temporary "sanctuary". But you're absolutely correct that this has to be primarily an investigative and intelligence operation. But let's not forget which nations obtain the greatest advantage by perpetuating such a terrorist effort against the US and Israel, especially if they can maintain "plausible deniability". These folks spent years plotting the 9/11 attacks, based upon FAR LESS provocation on the part of the US than might be asserted by the US overthrow of the Taliban. Lord only knows what they will have in mind for us next, should we permit them to find a place they can rest and regroup. I merely want to deny Iraq and eventually Syria the ability to provide such havens or transit points. As it currently stands, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon all provide a straight line "railroad" from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean Sea. And that route probably extends to some extent through Jordan, Egypt, and into Libya... All places where Customs and Immigration officials can be circumvented through intimidation, bribes, or government complicity. As for making things more "difficult", that's where other forms of leverage come into place, such as permitting the dollar to devalue, exacerbating Europe's economic problems by limiting their growth through exports to the US. Personally, and no offense to the average European, I believe SOME European leaders continue to resent the fact that they have had to be "bailed out" of most of their major conflagrations by us "colonials" and play "second fiddle" to US foreign policy since they can't implement one of their own, except at our expense. The fact that the US provides an overwhelming portion of the logistical and financial support for peace-keeping operations, but now they want to put their troops under the ICC, strikes me as a deliberate attempt to limit the American desire to participate in such operations. They can't strenghten their own participation, so they will weaken the US committment to become involved. Where's the logic in that? Yes, I welcome European assistance. But don't try and tell us that appeasement and containment is some kind of solution. All it amounts to is avoidance of the problem and unwillingness to apply the cure.to a festering disease, Islamic Extremism. Hawk