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 : Bush Administration's Media Manipulation--MediaGate? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (4400)	7/26/2005 8:11:53 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9838

Max Boot: China's challenge Threats to nuke America may be just the start 12:03 AM CDT on Saturday, July 23, 2005 Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu of the Chinese People's Liberation Army caused quite a stir last week when he threatened to nuke "hundreds" of American cities if the United States dared to interfere with a Chinese attempt to conquer Taiwan. This saber-rattling comes while China is building a lot of sabers. Although its defense budget, estimated to be as much as $90 billion, remains a fraction of the U.S. defense budget, it is enough to make China the world's third-biggest weapons buyer (behind Russia) and the biggest in Asia. Moreover, China's spending has been increasing rapidly, and it is investing in the kind of systems – especially missiles and submarines – needed to challenge U.S. naval power in the Pacific. The Pentagon released a study Tuesday of Chinese military capabilities. In a preview, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Singapore audience last month that China's arms buildup was an "area of concern." It should be. But we shouldn't get overly fixated on such traditional indices of military power as ships and bombs – not even atomic bombs. Chinese strategists, in the best tradition of Sun Tzu, are working on craftier schemes. In 1998, an official People's Liberation Army publishing house brought out a treatise called Unrestricted Warfare, written by two senior army colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. This book, which is available in English translation, is well known to the U.S. national-security establishment but remains practically unheard of among the public. Unrestricted Warfare recognizes that it is practically impossible to challenge the U.S. on its own terms. No one else can afford to build mega-expensive weapons systems such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will cost more than $200 billion to develop. "The way to extricate oneself from this predicament," the authors write, "is to develop a different approach." Their different approaches include financial warfare (subverting banking systems and stock markets), drug warfare (attacking the fabric of society by flooding it with illicit drugs), psychological and media warfare (manipulating perceptions to break down enemy will), international-law warfare (blocking enemy actions using multinational organizations), resource warfare (seizing control of vital natural resources), even ecological warfare (creating man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters). The two write approvingly of al-Qaeda, Colombian drug lords and computer hackers who operate outside the "bandwidths understood by the American military." They envision a scenario in which a "network attack against the enemy" would be carried out "so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network and mass media network are completely paralyzed." Only then would conventional military force be deployed "until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty." There are signs of this strategy being implemented. The anti-Japanese riots that swept China in April? That's psychological warfare against an Asian rival. The stage-managed protests in 1999, after the United States accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, fall into the same category. The bid by China's state-owned CNOOC Ltd. to acquire Unocal? Resource warfare. Attempts by China's spy apparatus to infiltrate U.S. high-tech firms and defense contractors? Technological warfare. China siding against the United States in the U.N. Security Council over the invasion of Iraq? International-law warfare. Gen. Zhu's threat to nuke the United States? Media warfare. Once you know what to look for, the pieces fall into place with disturbing ease. Of course, most of these events have alternative, benign explanations: Maybe Gen. Zhu is an eccentric old coot who's seen Dr. Strangelove a few too many times. The deliberate ambiguity makes it hard to craft a response to "unrestricted warfare." How do we respond to what may or may not be indirect aggression by a major trading partner? Battling terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda seems like a cinch by comparison. This is not a challenge the Pentagon is set up to address, but it's an urgent issue for the years ahead. dallasnews.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (4400)	7/26/2005 8:13:01 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9838

And Bush is the outlaw???? Re: Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu of the Chinese People's Liberation Army caused quite a stir last week when he threatened to nuke "hundreds" of American cities if the United States dared to interfere with a Chinese attempt to conquer Taiwan.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (4400)	7/26/2005 12:01:16 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 9838

Blair: World slept after 9/11 Tuesday, July 26, 2005; Posted: 9:34 a.m. EDT (13:34 GMT) LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday that much of the world had dropped its guard to the threat of terrorism after the "wake-up call" of the 9/11 attacks of 2001. Blair was speaking after meeting opposition leaders to discuss anti-terror legislation set to be introduced in the wake of this month's London bombings. He said Britain would not give "one inch" to terrorists and said it was time to confront them "on every single level." "September 11 for me was a wake up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again," he said. "We are not going to deal with this problem, with the roots as deep as they are, until we confront these people at every single level. And not just their methods but their ideas," Blair said. While rejecting suggestions he had claimed the London bombings had nothing to do with Iraq, Blair said there was no justification for terrorism. "Let us expose the obscenity of these people saying it is concern for Iraq that drives them to terrorism," Blair said. "If it is concern for Iraq then why are they driving a car bomb into the middle of a group of children and killing them?" Blair said. "They will always have a reason and I am not saying any of these things don't affect their warped reasoning and warped logic. "But I do say we shouldn't compromise with it. Whatever justification these people use, I do not believe we should give one inch to them." "There is no justification for suicide bombing whether in Palestine, Iraq, in Egypt, in Turkey, anywhere." Blair once again praised Londoners for their behavior in the aftermath of the July 7 attacks on the London transit system that killed 52 people plus the four bombers, and the failed bomb attacks of July 21. "I'm not standing here and being absurd about it in the sense of saying people should not be concerned; of course they are going to be concerned and worried," he said. "But I do think the way Londoners have responded has been magnificent ... because they have not allowed their worry and concern to overcome their determination to carry on with their lives. I think that's the best attitude." Following his talks with Conservative Party leader Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, Blair said he hoped final details of the anti-terror proposals would be presented to opposition parties in September. Proposals under discussion included measures that would allow authorities to close down extremist Web sites and extend the period for holding terror suspects. "I am very pleased that the cross-party consensus on the way forward is continuing," Blair said. "I think when the main political parties present a united front then you send an important signal to the terrorists of our strength, our determination, our unity to defeat them." Howard said that whatever measures are put before the House of Commons when it reconvenes in the autumn, they must be consensual proposals. "There's a great desire, at a time when the country faces such great danger, to work together. We're all in this together, and we all believe it's very important to show that the country is united in response to the danger we face, and we hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on further measures that will enable us to deal with this threat more effectively," Howard told reporters. "One of the principle objectives of the terrorists is to divide us, one from another. So far ... they have failed in that objective. It's important that they continue to fail in that objective. That's why we believe it is so important that we approach these difficult issues in a spirit of consensus, with the objective of reaching agreement wherever we possibly can," Howard said. The opposition leader said his party is concerned about the proposal to increase the period of detention for suspects related to terror investigations from the current two weeks to three months. "We see very considerable difficulties in that; that's a long time to hold someone without charge," Howard said. He said that other items discussed were a proposal that would make intercept evidence admissible at trials and authorities ability to close down extremist Web sites. Kennedy voiced concern that basic civil liberties might be compromised in the push to pass new anti-terror legislation, and also questioned the extension of detention proposal. "How far that extension might or might not go, I think is something that will require further evidence," Kennedy said. Proposed legislation put forth by the government also includes outlawing indirect incitement or the glorifying of terrorism, and making it illegal to prepare to commit terror acts and provide or receive terror training. Other measures, including increased use of phone taps and other intercept evidence in court, are being considered.