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: Hawkmoon who wrote (128602)	4/7/2004 1:21:12 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

believe that Al-Qaeda leadership has been severely disrupted and their primary funding sources curtailed. They are being forced back into a lower intensity of operations, bombing trains and car bombs, rather than major attacks.. I may be wrong, but that's my current belief until proven otherwise. Well, they haven't really done many "major" operations, and what major operations they have done have been typically separated by several years. And have been "low rent" operations. It seems to me, rather, that they have stepped up their operations over the past two or three years--there have been more of them, a fair number of people have been killed, a good deal of damage has been done, especially of course psychological damage. I would like to believe that we are making progress in Pakistan, but I'm not sure I do believe it, especially after that little fight two weeks or so ago when they had that "top" Al Qaeda leader allegedly cornered. Musharraf is on board due in part to sheer luck--the failed assassination attempts. But I won't pretend to understand Pakistan. In fact, the more I read about the country, the less I believe I understand it, and the less I believe anyone can actually "control" it, or find anyone who doesn't want to be found and has the support of a few of the tribes there. believe there is a cultural and social civil war going on in the muslim world. A war between non-violent moderates and progressives and far more violent militants. Actually, I think it is far more complex than that. There are so many different camps that I can't keep them all straight. If it were only a matter of "non-violent moderates and progressives" vs. "far more violent militants," it would be relatively easy. But the interests and the histories of the different factions are, well, far more byzantine than that. The word did originate in the Arab world. But I do believe the muslim, overall, has a real distrust of the US and its intentions in Iraq. This is due to decades of neglect for their condition and aspirations, support of corrupt regimes, and even possibly babying them too much by catering to their petro-dollars and OPEC. No question about that. It likely started with the 1953 coup in Iran which we were so proud of for years, and, IMHO, reached new heights with the Iran-Contra affair, which we were also so proud of at the time. And has increased after the '91 fiasco and the sanctions. And, as Carl would be quick to point out, for our strong support of Israel, though I believe that is not the sole or perhaps even the main factor as he seems to believe. If it weren't for the other things, I don't think their mistrust would be nearly as intense as it is. But the militancy was there in Iraq. Yes, but we released it. And we didn't have to. Not when we did. We had more important things to do. But then, we've had that discussion before, I know where you stand on it, you know my opinion.