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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (151542)	11/11/2004 4:47:49 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

It is imo quite necessary to poke holes in the immense Arab capacity for self-delusion and purely rhetorical triumphs, and give those brave jihadis a reality check. I guess its pointless to remind you that the 9/11 attackers did not hail from Iraq. Neither new recruits, nor their leaders, are going to be any less inclined to attack the US as a result of Iraq - whether its a "catastrophic success" or not. In fact, if Iraq had perfectly come about - without a shot fired and embraced each and every "coalition" soldier - do you honestly believe that a group like al Qaeda would lose one bit of its resolve? Hardly likely. They are just a patient bunch.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (151542)	11/11/2004 4:47:57 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

I am not sure that comparing US in iraq with Israel in Jenin works that well. The threat from Israel is from without--WB, Gaza, Hizbolah etc. Without external threats israel is safe. So if israel kills off the terrorist its a good thing for them. US in Iraq quite a different story. They are all around us. Problem never solved in triangle unti ordinary iraqis make a choice. Problem is largely contained in South and North. But where the US is, its an amorphous enemy--sometimes on the run, sometimes close by. And unlike the terrorists in jenin or gaza, these guys find ways to escape so either the population is terrorized, committed to them or both. Mike@whatworriesme.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (151542)	11/19/2004 10:49:28 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, re: "They've had three years to stage a followup. Why has nobody managed it? The truth is, it's not that simple. Why not approach the question from a more sophisticated angle? Ask yourself what Bin Ladin intended to accomplish by attacking America on 9/11, and then ask what he would have gained by attacking after 9/11. If you look at the probable thinking and goals of Al Queda with this perspective, it makes little sense for him to have attacked in this interim period. Let me explain. 9/11 was clearly intended as a spectacle that would shake up the world and further certain aims that Bin Ladin had expressed earlier. He wanted to show America that there could be deep and painful repercussions resulting from America's interference in Mideastern affairs; in particular for maintaining a physical presence there and propping up regimes that stood in the way of his religiously shaded view of how the region should be governed. 9/11 accomplished that goal. I think he wanted to show the Muslim world that terrorism could be an effective tool for change in Arab/American relations so that others would be encouraged to fight America and the West with terrorist tactics. As we've seen in Spain and throughout the world, that lesson took hold. I suspect that he hoped for an overreaction, angry rhetoric and actions on the part of the American government that would reinforce his message that for Muslims you were either "for them or against them" because the "infidels" were brutal and savage with respect to their treatment of and views of Muslims. He wanted to increase his visibility, increase his base of support, turn moderate Muslims into radical Muslims and widen the conflict. That goal had been, if the experts and polls are correct, accomplished beyond his wildest expectations. And, finally, I suspect he wanted revenge. Revenge for generations of oppressed Muslims in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and throughout the Mideast who have suffered decades of oppression at the hands of governments propped up, established or armed by American Administrations whose primary criteria was, "will you guarantee us access to oil?" In view of his overwhelming popularity in the Muslim world, the number of people flocking to his cause and the current situation in Iraq, what could he possibly gain by launching another attack inside the U.S.? I think the answer is, "NOTHING." By our actions in Iraq and the insurgent's response and successes there, he's been given a terrorist's every-day's-Christmas. What could another attack accomplish in terms of his likely goals that he's not already getting as a result of our failing and deadly campaign in Iraq? So instead of simply accepting the mantra that "they want to attack and kill us because they hate America and freedom," take a look at the possible motives and agendas that might drive radical but nonetheless intelligent extremists. If you look at it that way then the question is probably not why they "couldn't" attack inside America, the question is why they "might not want nor need" to attack inside America at this time. Ed