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: cnyndwllr who wrote (134746)	5/28/2004 4:36:40 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

almost every expert has said that terrorism is not dependent upon "state sponsorship Almost every expert has then added, "but it sure helps". Look, the kind of terrorism we care about needs big bucks. The two major terrorist networks are Al Qaeda and Hizbullah. Hizbullah gets over 100 million a year from Iran. Al Qaeda's funding is murkier, but it's clear it gets big, big bucks from Saudi sources, including princely (ie quasi governmental factions). Even a lot of the radical left terrorists of the 70s and 80s were getting Soviet help. It takes money, training, locations, safe houses to run to when the international police are chasing you and you have a big reward on your head. These things don't come cheap. Who has that kind of money? Who has the commitment not to sell you out the minute your enemies offer the better price? The answer to that usually boils down to a state of a major faction in some state somewhere, who shares ideological bonds with you. For many smaller states with a grudge, the temptations of raising a deniable strike force are very very great. One of the main reasons to put state sponsors into the crosshairs is to deter that kind of thinking.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (134746)	5/28/2004 6:05:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

So I guess you actually AGREE with my statement that terrorism does not need a state sponsor. You know.. I really apologize CD... I didn't realize that I was taxing your cognitive and linguistic abilities so severely.. I should have realized that you obviously had had a difficult time with your ESL courses.. But let me try and clarify.. You make a nearly dogmatic statement that "almost" every expert (of which I'm still waiting for your produce one credible example) has said that terrorism is not dependent upon "state sponsorship".. And I make an almost equally dogmatic statement that the type of terrorism that actually threatens to nation/states (their ability to survive and function) IS "usually" state sponsored... Now maybe we need to open this up to the audience (though I'm sure they are loath to get involved), but I perceive a diametrically opposed perspective here.. not one in which we agree.. If you need any further disabusement of the disconnect between the Bush implied reality and actual reality, ask yourself which state sponsored the Madrid terrorists who attacked so devastatingly a few short weeks ago. Well, not being privy to the intelligence sources investigating that bombing, one can only guess.. But someone assisted in providing not only the training, but also the passports, financing, and logistical support to enable to either carry out the bombing, or to support the the actual organization that provided such direct support to the bombers.. As for who had an interest in seeing Spain pull out of Iraq? Where should we begin?? As far as the doomsday fears that somehow terrorists will defeat the nations of the west, I can't agree. HAVE I EVER STATED that terrorists will defeat us? NO... What I have stated is that the cost in defending ourselves 5-10 years from now, when the probability of even greater militancy rising from the economic and political stagnation, as well as the hopelessness of millions of young Muslims with no properous future, WILL BE TREMENDOUSLY GREATER than any cost we pay now in attempting to thwart it. Is there something wrong with being as willing to influence the region with our own democratic values as the militants are with their theo-totalitarian ones? The regimes and people of the region are stuck in the middle looking for answers and alternatives that will provide hope and meaning for their futures. And unfortunately, many of them will wrongly "choose" to take the same path that Iran did with the militant Ayatollahs 25 years ago.. And Iranians are ONLY NOW displaying the ability to demand reform and change in that country after all of those wasted years and lost lives. Pointing out that the problem exists does not validate the use of blunt military force against nation states, and alleging that the problem is immediate and catastrophic doesn't justify escalating counter productive strategies. The only thing that will be counter-productive will be if we permit one totalitarian regime to be replaced by another, secular or theocratic, in Iraq. Breaking down the totalitarian barriers to elected and accountable government and economic participation is NOT going to spur greater terrorist appeal. Because, unlike yourself, I have faith that the majority of people, when given a choice, will vote their pocketbooks and focus on the welfare of their families, not on some grandiose vision of global Jihad and martyrdom. But they'll never be given that choice if someone doesn't stand firm in advancing democracy and reform in the region.. All they will be able to look forward is swapping one secular totalitarian regime for a theocratic one. Hawk