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: JohnM who wrote (46401)	9/23/2002 2:25:59 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As for Al Q being a kind of coordination center, I've read that, too We do know the Islamists from Eygpt tied in with them, and they have been around as some type of group since the '30s. They have ties with everybody. In any case, it does not make much practical difference. Bush announced in his speech to Congress right after 9/11 that we were going to go after all terrorists. What is your take on this attack on Arafat, and the backoff from it? I thought they were finally going to force him out, but they seemed to have stalled. Does not make sense. They are already getting all the vilification possible for doing it, they might as well "Screw their Courage to the Sticking Point" and finish it.

To: JohnM who wrote (46401)	9/23/2002 2:34:57 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

The Case Against War by STEPHEN ZUNES* The Nation Posted September 12, 2002 thenation.com <<...As is apparent in Afghanistan, throwing a government out is easier than putting a new one together. Although most Iraqis would presumably be relieved in the event of Saddam Hussein's ouster, this does not mean that a regime installed by a Western army would be welcomed. For example, some of the leading candidates that US officials are apparently considering installing to govern Iraq following a successful US invasion are former Iraqi military officers who took part in offensives that involved war crimes. In addition to possible ongoing guerrilla action by Saddam Hussein's supporters, American occupation forces would likely be faced with competing armed factions among the Sunni Arab population, not to mention Kurdish and Shiite rebel groups seeking greater autonomy. This could lead the United States into a bloody counterinsurgency war. Without the support of other countries or the UN, a US invasion could leave American forces effectively alone attempting to enforce a peace amid the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq. A US invasion of Iraq would likely lead to an outbreak of widespread anti-American protests throughout the Middle East, perhaps even attacks against American interests. Some pro-Western regimes could become vulnerable to internal radical forces. Passions are particularly high in light of strong US support for the policies of Israel's rightist government and its ongoing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The anger over US double standards regarding Israeli and Iraqi violations of UN Security Council resolutions and possession of weapons of mass destruction could reach a boiling point. Recognizing that the United States cannot be defeated on the battlefield, more and more Arabs and Muslims resentful of American hegemony in their heartland may be prone to attack by unconventional means, as was so tragically demonstrated last September 11. The Arab foreign ministers, aware of such possibilities, warned at their meeting in Cairo that a US invasion of Iraq would "open the gates of hell."...>> ____________________________________ *Portions of this article originally appeared on the Foreign Policy in Focus website (www.fpif.org), where Zunes serves as Middle East editor.

To: JohnM who wrote (46401)	9/23/2002 3:06:16 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

And how are you, Hawk? Doing fine John... if you feel so strongly about this issue, please offer some evidence of government support for Al Q, right now. Not three or four years ago. That's not Hezbollah and not Hamas and not several other groups. Just Al Q. Rather easy cop-out on your part... But you have admitted that you accept Saddam has carried out or supported terrorist actions directed against Americans as recent as 4 years ago. So what makes you believe he has "turned over a new leaf" now?? Saddam may be a megalo-maniac, but he isn't stupid John... He knows when to "lay low" and distance his support for these groups until he has sufficient political and military power to prevent any full retaliation against him (a nuclear shield). As for his "nature", Saddam is a bully, who maintains his power by being the "alpha male" with regard to exercising brutality and coercion.. And if you ever dealt with bullies in your life, then you know that for them to "look cool" in the eyes of their "gang", they cannot show weakness except as a temporary means to a greater end. Showing permanent weakness eventually results in their replacement, usually by force. Thus, with nuclear weapons, Saddam would find it IMPERATIVE to show that his momentary weakness and "cooperation" were only ruses which provided him the breathing space he needed, while giving the UN what it wanted, avoidance of confrontation and possible war. I haven't know too many criminals or bullies who have suddenly and remarkably altered their mindsets overnight. And given Saddam's continuing internal repression, I have little evidence that he's not just biding his time. Hawk

To: JohnM who wrote (46401)	9/23/2002 11:04:11 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nothing like a friendly post to start my afternoon read of the thread. And how are you, Hawk? Well, if you feel so strongly about this issue, please offer some evidence of government support for Al Q, right now. Not three or four years ago. That's not Hezbollah and not Hamas and not several other groups. Just Al Q. If your reply is that they are all tied together, then I ask for evidence? Not something on the level of we think Atta met with Iraqi agents, but something that is supportable The Saudis paid Al Qaeda $300 million only recently, as tribute or extortion money. Al Qaeda did a formal merger with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Zuwahari's organization, in 1999, which in turn is a sister organization to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and often aids Hamas as well. Iraq has been spreading money all over the West Bank recently, paying salaries, paying the families of suicide bombers, and Iraqi intelligence has been working with Palestinian terrorists, who now include Al Qaeda men, as does Hizbullah, supported by Iran to the tune of $100 million a year. Iraq has trained terrorists at Salman Pak and Iraqi intelligence works with Ansar al Islam. All the major terrorist groups receive support from Syria as well and have offices in Baghdad; Atta did make several trips there. These are facts established to a high degree of probability, not guesses. Doesn't this amount to quite a lot of evidence that the terrorist groups do, indeed, work together? I mean, how can you say "just Al Qaeda" and ignore the Muslim Brotherhood, when the two groups have formally merged?