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: aladin who wrote (77948)	2/26/2003 8:12:05 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

In the scope of looking at world affairs from a cold war perspective, we have for years supported Islamic fundamentalism or at least looked the other way. Mike's point is a good one and it is that to secure peace from our international friends we must now view all Islamic insurgencies as terrorism. This is the price of working with Russia and China. Of course not, John. Let's back up in this argument a bit. We are not dealing with "Islamic" insurgencies. Much too broad a stroke. We are dealing with, horrible term, "Islamist" strategies. Huge difference. Second, not all Islamist groups attacked us on 9-11, only Al Q. I added a small qualifier in my posts to read "and allied groups," simply because I'm not certain if others helped plan those attacks. But I'm drawing the circle every narrowly. If then you wish to suggest that the US must also assist the Russians in their Chechnian conflict in order to get their cooperation to hunt down Al Q, you would need to argue for that. That conflict is long running, predates Al Q by some length of time. Moreover, the members of those groups, forget the names, while having cooperated with Al Q, were not, to my knowledge implicated in 9-11.