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: Hawkmoon who wrote (100203)	6/4/2003 5:58:57 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<And I could care less about whether its AQ, or some other terrorist group attacking the US. This is a "war on terror", not just a war on AQ (as you apparently would choose to limit it to).. Frankly, it's time to "stir things up" in the middle and change the strategic power structure in order to bring some stability, and then hopefully some economic opportunity, to the region. That means the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict has to be brought to a stop. Because it has clearly become to threaten the US and its interests.>>> Yup. Its a new deal all around. Armed conflict of the old fashion kind against the US is gone. No more mass casualties, no more is it usful to try to predict results from reviews of conflicts older than 10 years. Any country knows they will lose, and suddenly. Its down to Terrorist activities as the major threat, and our expanded Intelligence and infiltration capability will make it very painful for a Nations leaders to support Terrorists. Idle thinking tells me that perhaps Saudi Arabia, having supported Terrorists in the past is due for a cleansing, Perhaps thats one reason we want the US troops out of the country- in case we have to "take out" a training camp there. Indeed, lots of stirring up going on, which will be of benefit to everyone- knowing better who speaks for what. Sig .

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (100203)	6/5/2003 4:57:04 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I haven't a clue what Abu Nidal was doing, but whatever it was hadn't troubled the news in the UK (or presumably the US) for 10-15 years. Sure, he deserved to die, preferably more slowly and painfully. But he's not what we invaded Iraq to get - we didn't ask for him to be handed over - he's no excuse, even to Perle. What's so confusing to you about this? Nor do I know, nor greatly care, why he was executed - quite possibly as Nadine says it was because he refused to do something; he's no loss to the planet. If he was 'facilitating other terrorist groups', as you suggest, then Saddam's evidently on our side, eh? I don't see how shouting about inactive terrorists is more useful than flushing out the active ones. As for why people might focus on AQ and its affiliates, well, duh. I can't imagine. Perhaps you should ask Bush, who put them at the top of his most wanted. Oh, yeah, wasn't there a bomb, or maybe a plane hijack/crash or three...???