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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (5967)	11/11/2003 1:44:48 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Well, the US marched into Iraq, blasted through Afghanistan but did not have much of an effect on Al-Qaeda. They continue their bombing spree worldwide. I don't think they strike on US soil everyday. You think they planned to strike once, then never again even when attacked? Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me. I think the fact that Al Qaeda has switched to non-US targets (after Khobar towers, US embassies, USS Cole, 9/11) would definitely imply that we have had plenty of effect on their plans. Apropos of that, here are some comments from a blogger's review of a recent Bernard Lewis lecture: I was struck with the matter-of-fact way Dr. Lewis referred to the Al Queda, and Wahabi, assumption that, of the two great super-powers, they had defeated the more menacing of the two. The Islamists not only have taken credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, they have also assumed that the soft-Americans would be much easier to defeat. According to Bernard Lewis, the September 11 attacks were to have been the final, devastating blow to America. Twenty years of seeing American casualties at the hands of Islamist Jihadists followed by American retreat and withdrawal, gave them the impression that the same would happen when the fight was finally brought to American soil. The Arabs have been shocked at America’s reaction. Surprisingly, Dr. Lewis attributes that shock to keeping the Jihadists from making any further attacks on American interests around the world since 9/11. By no means does he see it as assurance that future attacks won’t happen, certainly our vigilance is required. Instead he would have us look at the way the Islamists have responded. To continue centuries of experience in playing two enemies off against each other, the Arabs needed to find a counter to America. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Arabs have increasingly looked to Europe and to factions within America to act as the counter force for them. Adding to Islam’s crisis is the practical inability of Europe to counter America’s power. Although they may have the will, they do not have the means. Predicting the Arabs’ response to that is one of our tasks. oceanguy.com

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (5967)	11/11/2003 4:30:48 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Anyway, I think the Al-Qaeda (attack?) will force something that the US has failed to achieve: a true coalition to fight world terror with the US playing the role of a team member like the rest. Wouldn't this suggest that Bush was correct and the rest of the world incorrect? The recent attack in Saudi Arabia strikes me as an act of desperation. Hoping to solidify the support of militant Saudis against the Monarchy with a "the time has come to rise up" attack, while undermining broader based support in the Muslim community by attacking Muslims on "holy ground". It suggests that Al-Qaeda was forced to act thus, prior to having the full fledged social support network within the Kingdom needed to take on the Monarchy. Furthermore, this attack likely could not have occurred without the backing of rival segments of the Saudi royal family. This suggests we may possibly see further "purging" of these rivals from the ranks of potential succession. Civil war? Hawk