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: TH who wrote (60753)	12/9/2002 2:46:36 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I wonder if 9/11 would have still happened if our support for Israel was no different than for any other country in the region/world. Honest answer from someone who has lived in the region most of her life: It would not. Most of the ill-will towards America in the Muslim world stems from and is fuelled by its unconditional support of Israel against Palestinians. Would there be an Al-Qaeda anyway? Possibly, but as no more than a fringe group of extremist nuts. Would they ever dream to have the support they now enjoy? Would they be as bold, killing thousands at a go, and counting on the eventual polarization of the world? No. Most importantly: Would there be Muslims dancing in the streets after an inhuman attack that took thousands of lives and probably orphaned as many kids in America? Absolutely not. I will probably be called anti-American and anti-Semitist now. It is not true.

To: TH who wrote (60753)	12/9/2002 4:04:40 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"I wonder if 9/11 would have still happened if our support for Israel was no different than for any other country in the region/world." Here is a repeat of an earlier post(mine). Some thoughts on Al-Qaeda. 1) Al-Qaeda stems from poverty(if everyone had hot water and 3 meals a day then Al-Qaeda would disappear). Not very convincing. Supporters of Al-Qaeda are religious young men with access to education and economic means. Nothing indicates that the extremely poor or desperate are open for terror against the west. If the argument is valid then a solution lies in having the Middle Eastern countries take part in globalization (for many generations). 2) Stems from the fact of Israel. Does anyone think that Al-Qaeda will stop its activities if Israel were to cease to exist? Not likely. The argument is a powerful one when recruiting people to anger against the west but not an explanation as to why Al-Qaeda exists. 3) Attacks on American embassies and discos are part of a fight against undemocratic allies in the Middle and Far East. The real targets are the house of Saud and Murabak but it is easier to hit their protector- USA. Does anyone believe that withdrawing support from these regimes will stop Al-Qaeda from its terror attacks. I don't. 4) The destroyed states of Somalia and Yemen are the best places for the growth of Al-Queda type terrorists. That is an explanation for why Al-Qaeda type terrorists can operate but not why they exist. If Somalia and Yemen could fight Al-Qaeda and defeat them then it would be difficult for Al-Qaeda to operate but not impossible. In fact Al-Qaeda is a rich and tough criminal organization that is not affected by the present power structure. It is similar to other criminal organizations such as the mafia in as much as its economy is generated, in part, by drugs and whitewashed money, but is different in that it has an ideology. That ideology, an unusually perverse form of Islam, is the only rational explanation of the terror attacks on NYC, East Africa, South-East Asia, and the Middle East. Looking at the positive side there are very few states that are interested in co-operating with Al-Qaeda in order to gain an advantage in a local conflict. In addition there are very few people, also in the Middle East, who really support the network's terror attacks. Therefore the important factor is to separate the problem into 2 distinct areas: A) Work for peace, democracy, and improved standard of living in the Middle East and Africa. B) Hit Al-Qaeda as hard as possible with all available means. Right now Bush II is doing neither.

To: TH who wrote (60753)	12/9/2002 4:25:34 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Global terrorism and Colombia Published December 9, 2002 The Chicago Tribune chicagotribune.com While the rationale behind American involvement in Colombia's civil war keeps zigzagging, its cost to American taxpayers goes up steadily. In the past three years, the U.S. has pledged close to $2 billion in mostly military aid, making Colombia the third-largest aid recipient after Israel and Egypt, and roughly on par with Afghanistan. During his flash visit to Bogota Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell recast the Colombian conflict once more--from anti-drugs to anti-terrorism--and announced a fattening of the aid package yet again, to $537 million from $411 million in the last fiscal year. What Powell didn't offer was a persuasive explanation of American interest in Colombia's 38-year-old civil war or a reason for ever-increasing aid. Indeed, as American commitments and resources are stretched all over the world to fight a real threat of terrorism--from India to Kenya to Indonesia and seemingly every place in between--a justification for deeper involvement in Colombia becomes ever more elusive. There is no question Colombia's civil war is a textbook case of domestic terrorism. Or that the army often has been as guilty of atrocities as the two guerrilla armies and the paramilitaries. Kidnappings and killings of officials are so common nowadays that many small-town mayors have fled to larger and more secure cities and conduct business by telephone. Newly elected President Alvaro Uribe also seems to be making some headway to restore order. He vows to raise taxes and increase military spending, a gutsy move given the wealthy's reluctance to pay for a better equipped army, much less send their own sons to the front. His get-tough approach is overwhelmingly popular and has even prompted the paramilitaries to offer a cease-fire as a prelude to peace negotiations. Although some of Uribe's aggressive tactics have raised concerns among human rights groups, so far he seems to be operating within Colombia's constitutional framework. Wish him well. But still, what do Colombia's internal torments have to do with the U.S.? The Clinton administration rationalized its initial $1.3 billion Plan Colombia as a war on drug trafficking. But despite increased spraying of coca crops and other measures, drug production, like an elusive oil slick, just moved elsewhere in Colombia or to neighboring countries. The Bush administration has sought to recast the conflict as a war against global terrorism, offering the arrest of a handful of Irish Republican Army thugs in Colombia as proof. Yet that still does not make the conflict a direct threat to either the American homeland or its citizens. Instead, by pushing the two Colombian guerrilla groups and the paramilitaries into the column of international terrorists, along with the likes of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda, the Bush administration may be effectively hindering the ultimate solution to the conflict--negotiations. There can be no bringing of Al Qaeda to the negotiating table, but the only real hope to end Colombia's civil war--and Uribe has made some progress--is through negotiation. The U.S. ought to facilitate that process rather than lay the groundwork for continued conflict. Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune

To: TH who wrote (60753)	12/9/2002 7:44:54 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I wonder if 9/11 would have still happened if our support for Israel was no different than for any other country in the region/world. This admittedly popular thesis just doesn't wash. 9/11 was in the financing and planning stages when the Oslo peace accords were being agreed on, of which if my memory is exact, Clinton was a key player. bin Laden's network had already made an attempt on the WTC, and had made several other notable terrorist attacks, long before this latest Intifada sprung up. In short this "blame Israel" for 9/11 (and just about every other ill suffered by the Arab world) is just another argument trotted out by the Israel haters, and they never get tired of dreaming these things up. bin Laden is (or was?) basically one of those nutcases (like Tim McVeigh) with delusions of grandeur coupled with bestial sadism. He was above all else looking out for personal power at the head of some future global Califate.