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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (24409)	3/12/2004 11:37:42 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27748

You don't agree, eh? Oh well, that's only too natural. After all, there are opinions and there are opinions! Even before Islam was established by Mohammed, the Arabs (a Semitic people) were already in existence and they have been occupying that part of Earth now known as the Middle East since time immemorial. The fact that Islam came later (ca. 650/700) AD is quite irrelevant, IMO. So the land was theirs from the very beginning even though they were not yet Moslems until Mohammed came into their midst. If I inherited and have owned a certain property and business for a long time and then changed my name and/or religion and, following that, I adopted a different lifestyle and a different method of doing business, it does not necessarily follow that my property and business has ceased to be mine. From this you should be able to see your logic is flawed and cock-eyed. For a while, in the past, it was tacitly assumed, "To the victors go the spoils of war." In that scenario, lands were acquired by conquest. But that is no longer true today, however much some folks would like to argue to the contrary. Generally speaking, ownership of a land is determined by the occupation of that land by its indigenous peoples. Of course, some people don't agree with this. So, today, we have the World Court at the Hague to adjudicate matters with regard to land claims and territorial issues. No longer is it possible for a conqueror to "conquer" a country and claim it as his rightful property. Don't forget the days of colonialism are dead and gone. A country may be occupied temporarily but that occupation does not confer land ownership to the occupying force. In this regard, the Saudis are afraid. They know full well they are not the legitimate owners of the land they now occupy. Their ragtag ancestors took the land by force from folks with Shiite connections (if I am not mistaken) and now the Saudis find themselves needing the US to help them stay in power. When the Shiite revolution took hold in Iran and threatened to spread to neighbouring Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the US was concerned about its future oil supplies. So the US gave arms to Saddam to fight Iran to weaken Iran and also to weaken Iraq so that it would be easy to take it over later on. But, at that time, Saddam was very valuable to the US and was "revered" as a stablizing force in the Gulf region. Then, when the war with Iran was over and Saddam started to act tough, the US began to demonize Saddam with all means at its disposal. The aim of the US all along was to occupy Iraq and ensure for itself, a steady supply of oil whilst fighting against those who try to kick them out. Well, the rest is now history. Does US conquest of the Middle East confer ownership to the US? Certainly not, even though folks like you probably think so. Will the Moslems succeed in ousting the occupying forces? As I am not a Moslem, that issue does not have a high priority in my personal agenda. I leave that question to others who love speculating on it. IMHO, what we might be seeing in the foreseeable future is a return of a form of colonialism or neo-colonialism with the occupying power exploiting the wealth of the occupied lands. Well, as they say now and again, "History repeats itself."