And I'll bet Putin's awfully glad he wrested a grudging okay out of George Bush to 
consider the Chechens terrorists after what happened in the Moscow theatre house the 
past few days (5 Canadians were amongst the hostages). It looks like al-Qaeda's been 
scattered, but like the metal bits in the bad guy's cyborg body in one of the 
Terminator movies, each bit is as dangerous as the whole, and one of the bits seems to 
be in Chechnya. Latest news is that most of the "Chechens" are actually so-called
"Afghan Arabs," a term for people from all over the Arab world attracted to al-Qaeda's 
various causes. The largest source of Afghan Arabs, iirc, is Saudi Arabia, Pakistan 
and Algeria. Maybe Egypt's up there, too, I can't remember.  According to a book I'm 
reading now, the real Afghans who fought against the Soviets considered the "Afghan 
arabs" as little more than pains in the butt who kept getting in the way and would 
rather preach religion than lift a rifle and jump up out of a trench when
bullets were flying. They're very much resented by Pushtun Afghans (let alone Uzbek 
and Tajik Afghans).

Clifford M Dubery wrote:

> Yes, but rational thought in US Foreign Policy is not necessary when fighting the 
>"war on terror".  The origins of the Taliban in Pakistan and Al Qaeda in Saudi 
>Arabia, the fundamentalist nature of the latter and the move towards fundamentalism 
>in the North of the other point to a threat from other than Iraq.
> As much as Iraq needs a regime change, it is not a source of terrorism, aka al 
>Qaeda.  It is a threat to Israel and the stability of Middle-East Oil flow.  The 
>sooner they (Washington) admits it and drops the rhetoric the more rational they will 
> Just think, and invasion of Iraq will result in the moderate political elements in 
>the Arab world becoming anti-American.  Then the US will have multiple fronts to 
>fight in its war on terror, even if they succeed in replacing the Caliph of Bagdad 
>with General Tommy Franks.
> Our Generals (in Australia) have decided they can only fight on two fronts, so East 
>Timor and Afghanistan or East Timor and Iraq, not all three.  At least this mess has 
>meant an increase in our Defence Budget, now we are fighting in the halls of Russel 
>Hill whether we should have more soldiers or smarter weapons or both some how.  They 
>seemed to have made a decision to by (jointly develop and manufacture) the Lockheed 
>Martin JSF fighter-whatsit.  What's a few billion dollars here and there.
> Clifford M Dubery
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marc A. Schindler
> Sent: Monday, 28 October 2002 10:51
> To: zion-l
> Subject: [ZION] Oh, what a lovely ally
> It's awfully hard not to say "I told you so...."
> But Pakistan is the real concern, not Iraq, as the election results
> show. See article below, from the 19/10/02 issue of The Economist:
> Pakistan's election

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

“We do not think that there is an incompatibility between words and deeds; the worst 
thing is to rush into action before the consequences have been properly debated…To 
think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any 
idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character; ability to 
understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action.” 
– Pericles about his fellow-Athenians, as quoted by Thucydides in “The
Peloponessian Wars”

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; 
its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer, nor those of 
any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to