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: jcky who wrote (68480)	1/24/2003 4:13:37 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

The most prominent change has been a shift in strategy by Islamists in the last decade, or so, to redirect attacks from the "near enemy" to the "far enemy." I completely agree, jcky. I was trying to compact too much in to too brief a set of sentences, the better for busy folk to read them. So I conflated exactly that shift. And I also agree with your ever so brief rendition of Kepel. Had I thought a bit about that quick post, I would have included that line. From our perspective, this has ominous implications on our invasion of Iraq. I think it would be unconscionable of the Bush Administration to begin an attack of Iraq (putting my own philosophical differences aside) without having a viable contingency plan to address the security of Americans at home knowing the risks involved. At the moment, I see those as long terms threats much more than short term ones, but, certainly threats they are, whichever position one takes. One of the several great mysteries of this period from 9-11 forward is why that was not done. I can see no serious argument for the creation of the Homeland Security stuff, save an attempt to try to steal electoral stuff from the Dems.

To: jcky who wrote (68480)	1/24/2003 4:36:16 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Good post, jcky. But doesn't this statement The net result of 9/11 has been to codify the Islamist movement into strengthening terrorist cells, infiltrating societal infrastructures (military and civilian) and employing recruitment plans in the West to buy time and build the critical mass needed to support the effort to topple the near enemy at home. By advertising a successful jihad against the far enemy, a foundation of legitimacy is projected: an act in which the Islamist have been unable to achieve with the near enemy. imply that the Islamists intend to attack us regardless of whether we attack Iraq or not? But your conclusion makes it sound like you think an Iraqi war makes attacks more likely: From our perspective, this has ominous implications on our invasion of Iraq. I think it would be unconscionable of the Bush Administration to begin an attack of Iraq (putting my own philosophical differences aside) without having a viable contingency plan to address the security of Americans at home knowing the risks involved. Or are you just saying the Bush should prepare the home front, regardless?