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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46204)	9/22/2002 3:48:57 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I see. Palestinian terrorists count, until somebody tries to argue that they are evidence for taking action, when all of a sudden only Al Qaeda counts. Hmm, last time I checked, the Palestinians did not attack the US. The Bush administration got us into this catch all labeling problem in which all terrorists are alike. One of the more interesting points in the Times Magazine piece about Wolfowitz is that the original aim was not to include Hamas and Hezbollah. W, according to the magazine, made the arguments to so include. So then we get this squishy bit of "global" terrorists. Whatever that is. I don't consider putting the US into war against all "terrorists" good foreign policy. Too easy to confuse civil wars with something else. The threat of Saddam using his friendly terrorists to stage another 9/11 is too high to bear. Evidence?? We're not fighting just Al Qaeda. We're fighting terrorism and militant islam, and those regimes that sponsor them. Big, big mistake. Only Al Q attacked us.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46204)	9/22/2002 4:47:30 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

" We're fighting terrorism and militant Islam, and those regimes that sponsor them ". That was certainly the goal from the outset, kind of. I believe the term " harbour " them was initially used.I also believe it was intended to imply those terrorists that were responsible for the 9-11-01 attack, without prejudice John has the same concerns I've had from the outset.The generic term terrorist so describing any person or group who for whatever motive engages in acts normally defined as terrorist activities against any other person - group - state - country . It's incredibly broad when you think about it. Not only that, it somewhat gives a green light to any other country..etc... to define those who resist the doctrines of ANY state as being terrorists. China can now dictate that any hostile activity against its state can be defined as terrorism.The terms " rebels and antagonists, and maybe even freedom fighters " have been cast into the generic word pile under terrorists. Tis a brave new world.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (46204)	9/22/2002 6:16:50 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 281500

<<This war is not about taking revenge for 9/11. It's about preventing the next 9/11. We're not fighting just Al Qaeda. We're fighting terrorism and militant islam, and those regimes that sponsor them.>> I remember when President Bush addressed the nation after 9/11 in a great and stirring speech, he said the US of A will fight ALL terrorism. ALL, not a pot shot here and a pot shot there, but all terrorism. It's like a weed problem, you have to get them all or the resprout everywhere.