Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[contrarian]

Do thye have the right weapons where they can use them now? No! How long will it be? until they do.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[mack4289]

Saudi Arabia probably wouldn't support Hezbollah, since the former is primarily Sunni and the latter is primarily Shiite. But they already share a common benefactor in Hamas, so who knows?

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Funding%20terrorism%2015-mar-2007

"Historically, much of Hamas' funding has come from Palestinian expatriates around the world and from private donors in Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states. Iran also provides significant support. In addition, some Muslim charities in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe funnel money into Hamas-backed social service groups."


So if Hamas gets much of their funding from private sources, why can't Hezbollah?

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[mack4289]

Now we're really into speculation. My opinion is you're overestimating the control Middle Eastern regimes have over their populations. The other important thing is that terrorism, by its nature, is so decentralized that its hard to even say how relevant Hezbollah, or Hamas, or Al Qaeda is. Anyone who wants to be a terrorist can be one. Look at the guys who wanted to explode that bomb in London. As far as we know, none of them was affiliated with any of those organizations. They don't have to be.

Also, if you cut off the government funding, why wouldn't the private funding just increase to make up for it?

Just as an example of how Middle Eastern regimes don't have as much control as you might think, read this article about being gay in Saudi Arabia. I know being gay isn't considered nearly as much of a threat (it's not a threat at all) as terrorist activities so the government is bound to be more lenient with it. But still, it is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. This article can give you an idea of how, when people are determined to do something, the government often doesn't have that much power to prevent it. To read the entire thing, you have to be a subscriber to the Atlantic. Here are some highlights:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705/gay-saudi-arabia

"Yasser, a 26-year-old artist, was taking me on an impromptu tour of his hometown of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on a sweltering September afternoon.

.... �It�s a lot easier to be gay than straight here,� he had said. �If you go out with a girl, people will start to ask her questions. But if I have a date upstairs and my family is downstairs, they won�t even come up.�

Notorious for its adherence to Wahhabism, a puritanical strain of Islam, and as the birthplace of most of the 9/11 hijackers, Saudi Arabia is the only Arab country that claims sharia, or Islamic law, as its sole legal code.

.... The kingdom is dominated by mosques and malls, which the mutawwa'in patrol in leather sandals and shortened versions of the thawb, the traditional ankle-length white robe that many Saudis wear.

.... In Saudi Arabia, sodomy is punishable by death. Though that penalty is seldom applied, just this February a man in the Mecca region was executed for having sex with a boy, among other crimes.

... This legal and public condemnation notwithstanding, the kingdom leaves considerable space for homosexual behavior. As long as gays and lesbians maintain a public front of obeisance to Wahhabist norms, they are left to do what they want in private. Vibrant communities of men who enjoy sex with other men can be found in cosmopolitan cities like Jeddah and Riyadh. They meet in schools, in caf�s, in the streets, and on the Internet. �You can be cruised anywhere in Saudi Arabia, any time of the day,� said Radwan, a 42-year-old gay Saudi American who grew up in various Western cities and now lives in Jeddah. �They�re quite shameless about it.� Talal, a Syrian who moved to Riyadh in 2000, calls the Saudi capital a �gay heaven.�

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[mack4289]

But if the Middle Eastern regimes start really cracking down on the terrorist cells in their country, couldn't be they be upsetting the delicate balance that allows these governments to be in power? As I understand it, the ME govts basically have a deal with both the US and the terrorists: we'll try not to pis* either of you off so much that you cut off our aid (the US) or openly rebel against us (the terrorists).

The prime example of this is Pakistan. The US reimburses Musharraff for whatever he claims he spends fighting terrorism. In return, Musharraff claims he's better than whoever the Pakistanis would elect if they had democracy.

But Pakistanis and the rest of the ME need a chance to elect their leaders, even if that means they elect leaders openly hostile to the US. Either they elect them or they eventually force their way into power. The former has a much better chance of being peaceful than the latter.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[mack4289]

No I don't think it's an ok status quo. That's why I support ME countries that want a chance to elect their leaders, even if it means electing groups like Hamas.

At the same time, I support the West pulling funding from countries that elect groups like Hamas. Any aid we give should have strings attached.

If the US wants to enhance its credibility, it should do everything it can to encourage democracy in countries all over the world. At the same time, drop this illogical policy of not talking to certain countries.

The US and the rest of the world's secular democracies have the best ideas of any country about how to provide opportunities, freedom and stability for their people. We should be showing the rest of the world how strongly we hold our convictions by being willing to talk to any group and explain why our ideas are better.

[SuperFly]