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: Brumar89 who wrote (119355)	11/12/2003 11:57:25 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Obviously, Mr. Yussuf al-Ayyeri differs with some of the posters on this thread. According to him, al Qaeda and their ilk are after us not because of what we did, but for what we are. Perhaps, we should really analyze our reasons for not submitting to al Qaeda's demands... maybe if we would, we could enjoy peace in our time, no? The Post link didn't work. I found the same article - in full - on a different site. benadorassociates.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (119355)	11/13/2003 8:28:29 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

> Parthia was an empire equal to Rome in power and Mesopotamia was closer to Parthia's center of power than to Rome's. I would say that asymmetric warfare takes a lot of advantages away from us and puts it in favor of the local population...and we are as far away from our center of power and as close to the Islamists power centers as we could be. So the problem is more or less the same. > Re. the second point - the Islamic fundamentalists are already set on world dominance. Which was precisely my point. Look at it this way: Rome did not destroy Parthia. Rome made Parthia lose face which in turn led to creation of Sassanids who did destroy Parthia. Similarly we did not destroy the Brotherhood of Islam or the Lebanese Hezbollah, or many other variants of them. We only contained them which made them seem ineffective to the local population. And so they have now been replaced with a more destructive force. Destruction in this case does not mean killing their members; that would only increase the opposition to us. We can only destroy them if we can find a way for the people not to sympathize with them. ST