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: epicure who wrote (118878)	11/7/2003 10:35:59 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm enjoying the repartee between you and Nadine, XTU. You probably have some idea of where I stand. I would like to ask you one question, if I may: Did you read Pollack's book? Any comments on his conclusions? But thank you for pointing out, as I did in our last discussion, that they had not merged at the time of the gift. Zawahiri had interests in Egypt and Afghanistan as I went over in DETAIL last time we talked about this. Those other interests. Not sure I understand what you say here. But I will point out that terrorist organizations do not have clear cut lines or organization and engage in ad hoc alliances as the need and opportunities arise. Perhaps you have forgotten the connection between Libya and the IRA, organizations that nominally have nothing in common. This is of course in stark contrast to the Islamist militants who are joined at the hip by common interests. This networking is partially the reason why I posted the following link in a previous message and the reason why I suggest you study the effect of networking on terror organizations. Some RAND researchers coined an interesting term, "netwar," to conceptualize the point I'm trying to make. You might want to start your study of this issue at RAND's site, where you'll find a lot of very good books and articles on the subject. In short, terror organizations are not bureaucratic organizations stifled by rules that preclude them from acting in unison or promoting each others' interests. The suggestion that Zawahiri wasn't a part of AQ and therefore can't be considered tied to OBL until some formal merger took place is utterly and completely full of holes. We are not discussing mergers in any traditional corporate sense at all, as you suggest. rand.org I was very displeased with our friendliness with Saddam in the past, because we were friendly with him in order to perpetuate a proxy war, and I don't like proxy wars, because I think they violate the spirit of respecting the sovereignty of other nations, You must place this friendliness in historical context. Are you old enough to remember Khomeini and our strained relations with Iran? Would you have liked to have seen the Mad Mullahs plant their armies in Baghdad? What exactly do you think the war was about? What would have happened if Saddam lost his war with Iran? Hint: The MMs certainly weren't bound by your notions of sovereignty. Who would you have rather seen as a better bulwark against their threats to the entire ME and its oil if they won the war with Iraq? Qatar? Kuwait? The Emirates? Perhaps Abu Dhabi, that great military power. Yes, Saddam was our pawn in putting some constraints on the Iranians. Better Saddam than the US Army, in my view, no matter how despicable he may have been. What about yours? Think the Iranians were playing by the rules when they took over our Embassy? That, by the way, was legally our sovereign soil. Sanctionsm, containment....it's all blather after 9/11. If you had read Pollack's book, you'd acknowledge this. Oh, and by the way, the terrorist who tried in '93 to blow up the WTC flew to Baghdad afterwards for a little R and R, visit the museums, etc.