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

To: mph who wrote (188439)	5/12/2004 10:20:29 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585521

Have you ever heard of "logic"? You might like to make use of it in drawing conclusions from people's posts. Then, you might realize that your lack of understanding in a subject does not necessarily mean everyone else is "all-knowing". The point of my post(s) here was that everyone is so quick to psychoanalyze and blame it on the Iraq situation when terrorism has been on-going for years Terrorism is a METHOD of warfare, preferred by the weak who does not have tanks and planes and armies, against the strong who does. Of course it has been going on for much MUCH longer before Iraq. ... whichis why, incidentally, the phrase "war on terrorism" is a nonsensical as "war on kung-fu". The real point is whether or not the invasion of Iraq made the situation better or worse regarding terrorism against Americans. That, after all, was the whole point - that fallacy that Iraq posed a threat to US, had ties to terrorism, and its invasion meant something within the "war against terrorism". I frankly don't care whether "their perception" makes "sense" to THEM or not You should. If you don't understand your opponents, you have zero hope of defeating them. Thumbing your nose and saying "I don't care, I don't care" won't help you much. I was curious as to how the people blaming Iraq explained prior terrorist activity. If you word your question a bit better, people might have a chance of satisfying your curiousity.

To: mph who wrote (188439)	5/13/2004 5:09:01 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 1585521

mph, 1. Terrorism has to be fought on a different level than war. You need to be aware of the importance of not screwing up, otherwise it becomes a huge recruiting tool. 2. Terrorism occurred when Sadam was in charge. There was a terrorist camp in the north of Iraq. 3. There are a lot of criminals and fringe people in prisons, before and after Sadam. This doesn't translate into us ignoring the impact of #1 above. If the military (military intelligence) screws up, it significantly hurts the USA. 4. You need to care about their perception, because terrorism is different than war. Perceptions are extremely critical, and it's important to avoid yet an additional recruiting tool that puts "fringe people" at risk of becoming terrorists. 5. How do you explain terrorist behavior prior to Iraq? Economically and socially suppressed people, of which a small subset are easily influenced to conduct fringe behavior. Poor behavior by USA troops stirs this pot, and puts us at risk. Terrorism is like a medusa. You cut it off, it grows back. Bad events, makes it grow even faster. Analysis is important so as to avoid making things worse than what they already were before we got there. Battles in the 21st Century really require a population to be much, much more informed on issues of cultural perceptions, behavior, PR, photos, accountability, and effective corrective action where discipline is reasonably significant enough so as to be considered sufficient to other cultures. Not just a one-year jail term for murder, rape, sodomy and sexual torture. If the USA govt gives the soldiers only a one year jail term for any of these things, the battle will be lost. Because winning terrorism is about stopping the recruitment. I don't think our govt has a cultural understanding of what may happen to us, if they ignore the cultural perceptions of dishing out a light sentence. Sometimes a govt needs to put our well-being (society's well-being), above the individual criminal, by making the sentences severe enough so as to protect this country. Regards, Amy J