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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (58784)	9/18/2002 6:39:13 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The forces bin Laden commands have grievances against the United States which they believe are legitimate and serious, and are based on evil decisions by the US. The forces President Bush commands have grievances against Iraq which they believe are legitimate and serious, and are based on evil decisions by Iraq. Each side has people who agree with their position, and people who think their position is totally wrong. Whether or not you agree with bin Laden, it's worth knowing what his position is. Quite a while back I read an interview he gave, and his position was, given the parameters he started with, perfectly rational and well reasoned and logical. Of course, I didn't agree with his parameters, but then he probably doesn't agree with my parameters. One of his parameters is that Mecca and Medina are holy places for Muslims and that a Western military presence in them is absolute evil and must be resisted at all costs. Another is that when fighting a military machine as powerful as the US, you need to oppose it by guerrilla type tactics, which makes a lot of sense. Another parameter is based on the premise that the US is trying to destroy the centuries--no, millenia--old traditions and history of the Middle East and replace it with a decadent, money-grubbing, immoral culture. (Which, in fact, we are pretty much trying to do.) Another parameter is based on our Vietnam history, that the US population has no long term vision or staying power but is focussed purely on the short term (which is in many ways true), and that the US population has no stomach for a long and complicated war, and if hit enough times will just withdraw entirely and get out of the Middle East. None of which are irrational positions to take. Which is what makes him a particularly dangerous enemy. He has a very long term objective and vision, he's charismatic to those he seeks to influence, and his message is very appealing to people who see the US primarily as a newbie on the world stage (being only 225 years as a nation) trying to impose its will and its culture and its principles on a civilization which has had some remarkable historical achievements and has a deeply ingrained societal structure and belief system. We tend to make jokes about virgins in heaven, but the reality is that these are intelligent people dedicated to a long term cause they are willing to die for. We do ourselves no good by dismissing them as nuts, or fanatics, or crazy ragheads, or whatever.