Something just struck me about Osama's originally stated ain, to hit US
troops, later enlarged to civilians as well, to get them out of Saudi. He
seemed to object to foreigners being in the holy land of Islam. Now, based
on some published figures, there are up to 6 million foreign workers here,
the majority being Indian nationals (1.5mill), with many other
sub-continent, Philipinos etc making up the majority, and westerners in the
minority (cost too much). Where do these people fit into Osama's plans? Many
of the visitors will be Muslim, but there will still be several million
non-Muslims amongst them. At the risk of offending somebody, based on 7
years here, I can tell you that if they were expelled, large chunks of this
country would cease to function. Every now and again one sector of the
visitors goes out of favour (Yemenis during the Gulf war, Hindus during the
Ayodhya mosque thing), but the overall mix doesnt change that much.
After the Embassy bombings the Ministry of Interior tried to get ALL
foreigners removed from some government depts, but this would have crippled
many areas, and the idea was dropped.
JP
Riyadh
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Alan Yeo
Sent: Wed, September 26, 2001 12:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Simply long and off-topic
In article <[log in to unmask]>, Wirt Atmar
<[log in to unmask]> writes
<SNIP> A long intriguing text, culminating in
>But it isn't going to be rocket motors that are going to change the world
in
>our -- or anyone else's -- favor. It's going to be our avoidance of again
>making the mistake of supporting the most radical movements. The Afghani
>people have no desire to have the Taliban in power, any more than Iranians
>wished for the repressive fundamentalist regime that replaced the
repressive
>Shah. If we really want to rid the world of terrorism, we're simply going
to
>have to start paying more attention to the wants and needs of a significant
>portion of the world's population without greatly interferring in their
>internal affairs.
>
>Wirt Atmar
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
As a non American, I forbade making any comments last week when some of
the "Lets Bomb the World" talk started. There truly is a lot of grief to
overcome (and having siblings living in New York it could easily have
been me also) and feelings of rage and wanting revenge are fairly
natural.
However Wirt's final comment does hit the nail quite squarely on the
head. We (and this means all the Western Powers not just America) have
contributed to generating the causes of these acts of terrorism.
It was the West that armed IRAQ to fight against the perceived
destabilising influence of revolutionary IRAN, who like it or not were
just trying to throw off a monarchic system that many were suppressed
under. However the Ayatollah until a couple of years previously had
lived in London and organised from there. Its just that when the
revolution got underway we did not like the results so armed someone
else IRAQ to help control it. And low and behold a few years later its
IRAQ who becomes the bad boy of the world. Our combined actions in the
GULF war (and yes there was more than one nations troops based in Saudi)
did much to inflame the hatred of many Muslims who now support tacitly
or really the actions of some terrorists.
As other people on the list have already written the makings of the
Taliband were helped by the west, we armed them when they were fighting
the then enemy the "Russians" but then we abandoned them (or rather the
innocent civilians) when they started squabbling about what faction was
going to run the country.
We also created the mess that is the Israeli Palestinian state, and have
done very little to help resolve the conflict there, and in the process
have created many suffering people with a grievance against the West.
So before striking out, remember that today's friend may be turned into
tomorrow's enemy and vice versa.
And whilst not wishing to be confrontational, before declaring war on
any country that apparently supports terrorism, and thus potentially
creating even more people who have a deep hatred and who's only method
of retaliation maybe terrorism. Remember that we in England and Northern
Ireland have suffered from 30 years of terrorism from two supposed
religious camps, both of whom who received most of their support and
funding from North America. A political issue that today is simmering
under the surface but at least has a chance of resolution not that most
parties to the conflict (not least the two governments) have decided
that its better to talk than to use force. So if we were to declare a
war on supporters of terrorism where would we first look?
As the saying goes "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw
stones".
I heard one politician comment today, it would be better if Afghanistan
was bombed with food and aid rather than high explosive. It would be
just as likely to kill the intended target, would actually cost less,
and we would all end up with more friends in the world not more enemys!
I hope I haven't caused anyone offence, it was intended. But if I have
caused anyone to think, I did.
Alan
Alan Yeo
[log in to unmask] Just because you're paranoid
Phone +44 1684 291710 it doesn't mean someone isn't!.
Fax +44 1684 291712
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
