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: Rambi who wrote (114320)	9/10/2003 12:03:49 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

Back to lurking! Well, I think you might post here more often. The problem here is that many of us who post here regularly get a little knee jerky in our reponses because there's not enough new folk. For instance, I've been disagreeing with Carl for two years now and neither of us have changed our positions an iota -what can I say? Neither of us are very convincing, I guess- so when I see something that superficially reads like Carl, I have to refrain from giving it "the to Carl response". You're quite right, as is Hawk, that we should keep right on living the lives of modern, free people and give the finger to those who would destroy it, and be highly critical of those who either want to turn the continent into Fortress America, or pretend 9/11 wasn't a huge moment that crystallized our view of who our enemies are. I think, despite all his faults, FDR was a good example of this sort of thing. With all the problems he faced, personal and professional, he was, nonetheless, jaunty.

To: Rambi who wrote (114320)	9/11/2003 12:42:32 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I thank you for trying. No problem!! I just wasn't sure what it is that's apparently changed about America, except possibly finally having our eyes opened to the threat that exists. However, it doesn't mean that we have to cringe in fear, suspicious of everything, or anyone, who we perceive might be possibly trying to harm us. Nor does it mean we have to shut our borders down and entertain our worst xenophobic tendencies. My point is that we can't just wallow in our fears and be complacent about challenging and confronting the threat of militant Islam. We have to do more than just "homeland security". We have to attempt to reshape the thinking and tolerance of many of these muslim nations in order that religious zeal is not perpetrated by violent or government coercion... Islamic militancy not only threatens the non-muslim western nations, but also those moderate, or less zealous Islamic sects who are considered to be teaching heretical interpretations of the Koran by the Wahhabists. The Sunnis, Druze, Shiites, Alawites, Sufis.. etc.. All have been attacked and massacred in the past for not being "pure enough" for the Wahhabists. And its these moderates who we need to reach out to and convince to stand up for their own moderate values lest they fall under the control of the militant Jihadists.. I just picked up a copy of the most recent "Time" magazine, the cover story deals with the Saudis and their connections to 9/11 and Wahhabism. It should give you a better understanding just how intolerant these militants are towards the "infidel" non-muslims. Even so far as to teach their children that they must not shown any form of happiness on a "infidel" religious holiday. And finally, I see some coverage being given to the demographics of Saudi Arabia, where 50% of the people are under the age of 18, and well indoctrinated and versed to, at least, internally despise non-muslims. Thus, the only way we should "change" as Americans is to recognize that we're in a long-term war that could escalate into something VERY nasty. And we should be dedicated to fighting that war, socially, culturally, politically, economically, and, if need be, militarily. Because to ignore the problem isn't going to make it go away. Hitchins and X arrived at a similar conclusion from totally opposing views of the war which I thought gave the point some interesting weight. Hitchen's point of view, and mine, are nearly the same on this matter. But I have never seen X espouse anything similar, except to denigrate anyone over playing the 9/11 attacks (of which aspects have been, while others, have been nearly unmentioned, such as what COULD have happened that day.. I had read Hitchen's stuff before when I happen to come across "The Nation", but never found much to agree with in his writing. But with regard to the determination with which we must confront, deflect, divert, and "domesticate" militant Islam, we're on the same wavelength. But right now, I get the distinct sense that not too many folks have let it sink in that we're at war.. A war against an idea.. And ideas are much harder to fight without utilizing a "scorched earth" policy of conquering, reshaping, and rebuilding a complete society from scratch. And while I acknowlege that Saudi Arabia is the heart of the problem, I'm not quite prepared to take the sledgehammer of national mobilization and unconditional surrender against that nation. I would like to see if some moderation and tolerance can be extracted, as well as to pressure them to open up their society.. But I have no illusions that the Saudi government will be successful in reining in their militant clerics. But I'm willing to give them a chance before seeing US troops be required to invade and overthrow the regime and install a post-WWII occupation upon them.. That would be bloody indeed, for all sides. Emotionalism especially if it evidences itself as fearful or overwhelmed, can be a distraction from real action, or even seen as a a victory for the enemy. The grim determination must be paired with a certain dignity and grace in the way we go about our days perhaps? And I sense we also share some common perspectives.. Kind of how the British endured the Blitz and maintained their dignity during WWII. Hawk