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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (106044)	1/3/2010 2:38:55 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Yes, defending ourselves against our enemies created those enemies, if we'd roll over, the world would be at peace. Or would you like to present the criteria for which battles to fight and which ones to walk away from? Sometimes bad and worse are the choices.

To: mishedlo who wrote (106044)	1/3/2010 2:57:40 PM
From: Metacomet	7 Recommendations Respond to of 116555

The US invaded Iraq on trumped up charges of weapons of mass destruction. How well did that work out? That was probably the most remarkable success story of the Bush era. As long as you understand that the invasion of Iraq had little or nothing to do with anything in or about Iraq, but was the Bush re-election strategy. In order to continue shoveling billions to his posse, he had to remain in office in 2004. Obviously Americans had figured out they had elected a dolt by 2004, but could be counted on to not make any changes during a "war", so Bushco invented one. Had nothing to do with Saddam. He was a convenient straw man. scu.edu

To: mishedlo who wrote (106044)	1/3/2010 3:23:46 PM
From: skinowski	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Thanks for your reply, Mish. I need to leave now, and over the next few days I'll travel and work quite a bit, but will think about it and comment later when I can. Not many subjects are more interesting and important these days, no question about that.

To: mishedlo who wrote (106044)	1/3/2010 5:33:47 PM
From: Sr K	Respond to of 116555

And Detroit gave Hussein the Key To The City (for providing funds for a mosque).

To: mishedlo who wrote (106044)	1/3/2010 7:38:41 PM
From: Hawkmoon	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Mish.. I suggest you stick to economics. Because your lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the politics of the Middle East is fatally flawed. But they do care we have troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Bin Laden's major beef with the US (and he said so himself), was we had "troops on sacred Arab soil". So every Arab in the world can declare "Jihad" because an Americans are located in a Muslim country? What's next, every US plane that lands in a Muslim country? Every ship that visits an Arab port? Can I declare a Crusade because Arabs because they have their military pilots training here in the US? Can White Supremists kill Black Federal Agents who get stationed in their cities? I mean.. MY GOD.. THINK!! And btw, we didn't train him. He was a Saudi asset. There is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that the CIA actually had anything but peripheral contact with Bin Ladin. So quit proliferating outright LIES. The closest the CIA got to Bin Ladin was funneling a "small" amount of funds to the "MAK" THROUGH Pakistan's ISI (they demanded all funds pass through their hands first and no direct CIA contact/agents in Afghanistan). en.wikipedia.org Furthermore, we can tie Abdullah Yusuf Azzam to Bin Ladin, and the "Blind Sheik", Omar Abdel-Rahman: en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org Stupid US invasion of Iraq Saddam's regime was involved with Islamist groups and recruiting them to conduct "false flag" operations against the US and American forces. I know.. I PERSONALLY SAW the documents from Saddam to his intelligence director DATED IN 1992. He specifically wanted to attack US forces supporting the humanitarian relief effort in Somalia ("blackhawk down"). THAT was a direct violation of the cease fire. And we're not EVEN going to get into Ramzi Yousef and the 1993 WTC bombing, despite the fact that Yousef had an IRAQI PASSPORT, and was the nephew of Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, who we're about to put on trial for 9/11. The reality is that Saddam was a threat. He was intransigent, he was in MATERIAL VIOLATION of a UN Cease-Fire, and post-facto to the invasion we had discovered he was waging a covert war using Islamist groups to attack Americans and US interests. And given the reported intelligence at that time, it was uncertain whether Saddam had been involved in providing support to Al Qaida or not, but that it was clear it was in his interest to do so if it would distract the US from dealing with Iraq. ) Drones accidentally blowing up innocent Pakistani citizens And how do you think Pakistanis feel about their people dying as a result of DELIBERATE TERRORIST ATTACKS by the Taliban? msnbc.msn.com ) US not going after Bin Laden but other nebulous goals to the point that it looks more like an oil grab than anything else And wow!! Look at all that oil we grabbed!! Looks like we control all of that Iraqi oil, now doesn't it? We're filling our coffers FULL of Iraqi oil revenue, aren't we now? What an IDIOTIC thing to say!! Hell.. Shumer and a few other democratic senators made SURE that China got the first oil contracts out of Iraq. Hawk

To: mishedlo who wrote (106044)	1/6/2010 7:56:57 PM
From: skinowski	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Mish, I'll have to keep my comments simple - happens to be a very busy week for me. Here they are. Please forgive possible typo's and poor editing. It occurs to me that most arguments in the debate with respect to our conflict wit the militant Islamists can be broadly placed into one of two categories. One, for convenience sake, we may label as "blowback" arguments. The other, perhaps, for the lack of a better term, Religious/Historical. "Blowback" theories tend to place the main emphasis on connections between our (relatively recent) actions, and the anger and actions of the Jihadis. It is claimed that they attack us because of infidel boots on the Muslim soil, because of our meddling, because of our support for Israel, because of the war in Iraq, etc. The "Religious/Historical" line of arguing maintains that the grievances like the ones mentioned above are merely (tactical) excuses, that the underlying reasons for their hatred are far deeper, and in some respects they go back for several centuries. The belief is that if we remove all our troops, if we abandon Israel and fulffill all other demands on Osama bin Laden's laundry list of grievances, they would still find reason to hate us and to attack us. I submit that ignoring deeper psychological, historical, socioeconomic - AND religious - reasons for this great conflict of our age is a mistake. The post to which you replied offered some - imo - interesting insights related to such "deeper" analysis. You quoted and commented on the first part of the post, but the stuff further down, I think, is more important. I would like, if I may, present another example of thinking along such lines. It is a post by me, written in October or 2001, just a few weeks after 9/11. By and large, I think, it remains valid. I haven't looked at it for a few years, and I think it's kind of fun... many of those thoughts back then were new and original. Message 16500605 Last but not least -- I saved an article about the life and works by a person who remains the most important ideologue of the modern Islamist movements - Sayyid Qutb. Fascinating man. I actually read parts of his "Milestones", which is the ideological "bible" of the extremists. Interesting writing - very logical, "clean" - and absolutely... uncompromising. Quoting from memory - "Anyone who walks even one step along with a man who is in a state of Jahiliyah (religious ignorance) is himself in a state of Jahiliyah". That's what I call zero tolerance... :) Message 18740005 Part 2 is the reply to this post. The story about Qutb is a longish read - but it is probably the key, the conditio sine qua non - towards understanding what's on the mind of the opposition. An if we don't want to go through the effort of truly understanding them, that will keep us at a disadvantage. Thanks everyone for the interesting discussion, hope to continue.