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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gary Ng who wrote (68403)	3/10/2003 12:00:36 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Iraq, Iran, NK, Syria, Libya. So you believe terrorism will cease to be a problem once these countries are "eradicated" and everyone will be safe, uh, forever? That is the list I read so far from the US administration. And your own opinion on the matter is? Would you care to tell us why you think Saudi Arabia is not on that little list of countries to be eradicated so the world can be safe ever after? After all, 9/11 terrorists were Saudi with an overwhelming majority, and serious funds to radical Islam come out of this country. Yet Saudi Arabia is a US ally. Why, for example, is Pakistan not on this list? It is run by a dictator. The Taliban were students from Pakistan, where there is still enormous support for radical Islam. Number 3 guy in Al-Qaeda was captured in Pakistan, so one may say the country still sanctuary to terrorists. Oh wait, Pakistan is another US ally. BTW, It is not what I would like, but Bush. It looked like it was what you thought, but I may have misunderstood. So what do you think? >>>You seem to believe "terrorism" is a country-specific disease, sort of like communism perhaps, which you can "eradicate" by invasion & regime change. <<< Not me, Bush and his supporters do I assure you they don't. If I thought for a minute that Bush et al believed their own rhetoric re Good fighting Evil, or that terrorism will go away if Americans invade some more countries, I would have to be more concerned than I am now, for it would point at serious deficiencies in the thought processes of US leaders, not to mention a complete misunderstanding of terrorism. You see, terrorism is not a disease you can eradicate by killing all the sick (even then, it would have been questionable to do so). It is a method used by the weak against the strong, rebels against a state, etc. It is cowardly at times, painful, and unfair. However, it is just a method - states have armies of soldiers, dissident groups fighting them have terrorists (or "freedom fighters", depending on your perspective). As such, you cannot stamp out terrorism, unless you know of a way to make sure nobody will ever disagree with, and rebel to, their government or to yours. I assure you that your administration knows this as well. The imminent war on Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with control - control of the oil, control of the region.