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: skinowski who wrote (106148)	1/7/2010 2:12:07 AM
From: mishedlo	9 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

"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 fulfill all other demands on Osama bin Laden's laundry list of grievances, they would still find reason to hate us and to attack us. We are not their real targets. We are means to an end, innocent bystanders, if you will... They attacked us in order to accomplish their own domestic political goals. Osama is not stupid. He knows that he cannot conquer us, or convert us to Islam. What he can – and will try to do – is radicalize the ISLAMIC FAITHFUL and TAKE CONTROL of Muslim Countries. Let's assume that BOTH theories are valid What is the winning policy? Even IF the "Religious/Historical" argument is true, the only solution is mass extermination of all Muslims. Are you promoting that? Some idiots here probably do but I bet you don't. What distinguishes such a policy from Hitler's grand solution? For that matter, what distinguishes the Radical Muslims from say the likes of Pat Robertson who advocated murdering Chavez. Now just imagine the reaction of Robertson or the US Govt if Chavez advocated murdering Bush. Is an entire religion responsible for the actions of nutcases? Which side did you want wiped out in the ridiculous battle between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland? Sadly, Hitler's theories are now back in vogue by those on the Religious Right (religious WRONG) ie. Kill Them All. Let's step back for a moment. After 911 Iran (yes Iran) volunteered to help us find those who did it. The US government turned down that offer of help. Why? You tell me because I believe Iran's response was genuine. Moreover, I believe the vast majority of Iranians would welcome a warm relationship with the US. And I certainly would encourage a warm relationship with IRAN. So much so that I would have a neutral policy to defend Iran from an attack by Israel as well as a policy to defend Israel from an attack by Iran. I am talking about a state sponsored attack not an attack by some nutcase (like Pat Robertson) doing or acting on his own accord. How can such a policy NOT be stabilizing? Shouldn't that be the goal? Instead we ignore every loony thing those like Pat Robertson say, and we support Israel no matter what they do, and many have the attitude that it is necessary to "wipe them all out" so what the F are they supposed to do? I have a hard time blaming them actually. We need a policy that understands where they are coming from and why. I am not saying we agree with it, I am saying we need to understand it. It is clear that we don't. But if we did, our policies would change to what I suggest: Strike back against violence but only SURGICALLY. It makes no more enemies. And violence for violence sake is very very tough to gain converts. And finally it is important to realize that it is impossible - IMPOSSIBLE, no matter how many $trillions we spend to eliminate all the nut cases like Tim McVeigh in the world. Yes, we need to admit we have our own nut cases too. McVeigh and Pat Robertson are proof enough. Thus... The correct action is to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries and strike surgically when attacked by nut cases. We HAD the world's sympathy after 911. We blew it. Mish

To: skinowski who wrote (106148)	1/7/2010 3:16:48 AM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

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... :) You've hit a very important crux regarding the issue of Islamic Militancy. Qubt's influence is very important to how Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Zawahiri's group which merged with Bin Ladin to form Al Qaida). It could be said that Qutb's influence dominates much of the militant theology because of Zawahiri's influence (I still believe Bin Ladin is probably dead and Zawahiri is really in charge). As for your post from 2001, I would agree.. it's very concise and remains germane. Many folks, both inside and outside of the government/military, don't understand the nature of the enemy we're fighting. I know this first hand having worked with some very interesting individuals during the 2 years I was in Iraq. I think our learning curve is leveling out and we're finally "getting it", but back in 2004-2005, I was amazed at the lack of understanding regarding the nature of the threat. And let's face it, Bush/Cheney didn't do a very good job of conveying the "why we fight" argument to the American people. And I'm not giving much credit to the Obama Administration either (not that I would expect it from them). We've (the developed world) permitted some very virulent economic and social situations to become "infected" within the Muslim world. We have any number of failed states and hundreds of millions of people who lack any real hope of a better life. And it's going to take considerable effort, treasure, and blood, to resolve the problem. What we cannot forget is that, thus far, the largest majority of blood that has been shed has been that of innocent Muslims at the hands of Islamic Militants. HOWEVER, if we don't attempt to stave off this Islamist trend, inevitably it will be the blood of our current generation of American children being sacrificed in years to come. Hawk