On 10/3/07, shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 03 Oct 2007 7:17 am, Udhay Shankar N wrote: > > What was your point, again? > > > Thanks for asking. > > A robust response to terrorism such as that displayed by the US comes with its > own price. Other current threads on this list lament the price that is being > paid, but hey the US _HAS_BEEN_ safe from terrorism hasn't it? > > India pays a different price for not cracking down on terrorism. > > It is possible for some of us to live in a curious zone where we enjoy both > safety and freedom but since you asked what my point was, it is "There's no > such thing as a free lunch"
I don't buy this. IMO: a. Al Qaida has a lot more to gain from attacks in Iraq, Pakistan than in the US and Europe. The 9/11 attacks established Al Qaida as the de facto leaders of Islamic militancy. They're probably focussed now on building a powerbase in the Middle east. If Dubya hadn't put his foot into the Iraqi beartrap, we'd probably be seeing an upsurge in violence in the usual suspects of Lebanon, the West Bank, Pakistan or Afganistan. b. I don't think you can *ever* "kick terrorist butt". The very nature of terrorist cells is hydra headed: you kill one and two more will spring up to replace them. The only thing you can do is remove the environment that nurtures them. The Irish Troubles is a case is point -- violence subsided only when the militants had confidence that the peace process was a better way to get what they wanted. What will kick Al Quaida butt? A stable Iraq and a viable Palestinian state. -- b
