SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (184845)3/16/2004 12:13:28 AM
From: SilentZ  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575760
 
>Meanwhile, Peter Bergen is asserting that Al Qaeda isn't an organization, but an ideology bent on the destruction of Western secular society. "This is more like a mass movement, and you can arrest as many people as you want. But it's very hard to arrest the movement of ideas."

That's correct, and about 150 million people in the world are sold on this ideology, and growing.

What to do? Personally, I just hope that it doesn't grow fast enough so that I am personally affected by it in my lifetime...

Selfish, no? But I don't have another answer.

-Z



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (184845)3/16/2004 2:24:12 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575760
 
-- It is possible the U.S.-led war on terror has created new enemies of Western governments and societies by splintering al Qaeda, according to counterterrorism experts.

Some U.S. government officials go so far as to say that even if Islamic fundamentalists are eventually found responsible for the train bombings in Spain last week, the effort to identify one particular group may be futile.


Yes, current wisdom suggests that the Iraqi war has acted as a catalyst for an increase in the numbers of terrorist groups in the world. Even Rumsfeld said this weekend that it appears divergent terrorist groups are working more closely together.

Given your past views, I don't suspect you believe many of these theories are true......although you may be more willing to entertain the possibility that they are true.

Prior to the war, did it ever occur to you that this eventuality might result from our intervention in Iraq......or did you think it highly unlikely? There is no cleverness behind this question.........I am genuinely interested in what your mindset was at that time.

ted



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (184845)3/16/2004 8:46:29 AM
From: hmaly  Respond to of 1575760
 
Tench Re...Personally I'm fearing for the other nations that supported America in the Iraq war. That includes Poland (who's stepping up to take Spain's command come July 1st), Italy, and Australia.

While that is a possabilty, I think their success in Spain, will lead to attacks against the US, either in the mainland, or in Iraq, in an attempt to influence our election. Friedman was on Mattews last night, and he favored attacks, in Iraq, in Oct and Nov.; and what he says makes a lot of sense. If Al Qaeda attacked america, Al Qaeda would be taking a big chance on a backlash, whereas attacks in Iraq, could easily turn our electorate against the war, just as the barracks bombing in Lebanon got us out of there, and Somalia made us scamper with attacks overseas, without a backlash.

But experts such as MJ Gohel, a terrorism specialist at the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a London-based think tank, suggest the term al Qaeda is just shorthand for a complex global terror network.

"What we are dealing here with is an ideology," Gohel said. "It is a global jihad movement composed of al Qaeda and many affiliated terrorist groups. All of these groups are autonomous."


Frankly, that would be the view I would ascribe to also. Frankly, I think Bertrand nailed it, pretty close, with his essay in 91. Al Qaeda ia a result, of the ideology, not the cause.

Now, counterterrorism officials say one of their biggest concerns is how U.S. actions such as the war in Iraq are motivating new recruits bound by a common goal: to destroy Western secular society.

Which was one of the biggest reasons for the leftists arguments, against Iraq; and for Ted's assertations, that this war is unwinnable. Will Iraq possibly engender more attacks in the short run. Sure. Al Qaeda doesn't have the luxury, in Iraq, to wait and strike on their terms, so reason would say, that the attacks will come sooner than later. And for that reason, I believe Iraq must be fought, so we can fight terrorism on our terms, not theirs. The left feels that we can negotiate our way out of this. To that I must say, What negotiations, and with whom. These blood feuds, some want to blame on the GOP have been going on since the Crusades, and Sunni against the Shia, since the sixth century. That is the way of life in the Arab world, and it won't stop, just because of a few negotiations. So, this war won't stop, until we take the fight out of them, or they us. And, if we are going to have to fight a war, I would rather fight it over there, than over here.