Are terrorists the new privateers

[Burgold]

Just a random thought, I was thinking about how a few centuries ago, many nations publicly decried piracy, while privately kept them on the pay roll and used them for impressment and for private unofficial attacks against their enemies. Are today's privateers terrorists? Are they really unofficial agents of nations like Iran, Syria, and Palestine... doing their dirty work in a way in which they can keep their hands officially semi-clean. The more I read about Hezbullah and Iran, it seems like Hezbullah is an official/unofficial part of the Iranian military.

You have to wonder, because to afford all the munitions, explosives, and assundries to keep these millitias together and active must require pretty deep resources. Are terrorists not rogue militia groups, but active privateers working for various national interests?

[Mr. S]

I thought some have copmlex networks on the black market selling stuff including drugs. That is an interesting view though, I mean, Piracy would be considered terrorism, and there are modern day pirates who perform their acts of terror on waters still.

[Air Force Cane]

you are absolutely correct Burgold.

Hizbullah was established by Iran in 1982. They recieve 100 million dollars a year from Teheran. They are led and trained by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Brigades. They take their orders from Iranian National Security Advisor Larajani.

Bibi Netanyahu wrote a decade ago, before 9/11- that terrorism would not be defeated until their STATE SPONSORS are defeated. We can't win in Iraq or in the Middle East if Iran is still able to send hundreds of millions of dollars along with equipment to our enemies.

The Arabs can't even make their own weapons! Much less terrorists. They have to get their armaments from Syria and Iran who purchase them from the Chinese and North Koreans-

if we destroy the head of the snake they will be weak and unable to do anything more than suicide bombings. If we allow them to survive however, nuclear bombs being delivered by Shaheeds are inevitable in American cities.

[Kilmer17]

There is no difference between Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Asqua etc and the Govts of the majority of the Middle East.

[Thanos]

you are absolutely correct Burgold.

if we destroy the head of the snake they will be weak and unable to do anything more than suicide bombings. If we allow them to survive however, nuclear bombs being delivered by Shaheeds are inevitable in American cities.

Quit using this scare tactic AFC.

[Air Force Cane]

Kilmer- your overall point as to their objectives is mostly correct.

However, we do see Al-Queda murdering the Shias' in Iraq. And Iran is Shia, which is why the Saudis hate them.

And Hamas is Sunni, but Hizbullah is Shia.

So first they are going to destroy the Jews and Christians, then they will fight it out with themselves like we are seeing in Baghdad right now.

[twa]

I would class them more as pirates,but close enough.

Burgold you do know Iran started Hezbollah with 2000 of it's republic guards and mullahs?...It was not some accident.

[Burgold]

I thought it was an interesting historical comparison. Seems everyone agrees.

[Raub]

I see someone else watched the special on Real Pirates of the Carribean

And yes, I agree with the analogy. But I feel that terrorists wield much more power and are much more dangerous than the privateers or pirates ever were. And they are probably going to be much more difficult to root out and destroy.

[Midnight Judges]

I thought it was an interesting historical comparison. Seems everyone agrees.

It is a good comparison. There is a certain futility in it though, because civilized nations can not fight fire with fire in this case.

[CrabR]

The Arabs can't even make their own weapons! Much less terrorists. They have to get their armaments from Syria and Iran who purchase them from the Chinese and North Koreans-

.

They can buy them form the US, if not from the goverment then from the illegal arms traders, Remember the Wilson case back in the early 80's.

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/edwin.htm

[Burgold]

It is a good comparison. There is a certain futility in it though, because civilized nations can not fight fire with fire in this case.

This is a great defining statement. When President Bush said we will consider those who, harbor, aid, and fund terrorists to be terrorists themselves, it was a strong statement that really could have meant something. It has proven to be mostly hot air. It was this statement though, that made some people think that Iraq was a worthy target, because of its program to fund Palestinian terrorists or at least the deceased terrorists families. Now, others heard the President's words and said, if you are going to attack terrorists or the countries who are in effect their employers what about Iran? What about Saudi Arabia? What about Syria? These are much more active terrorist nations whether you want to use either an active or passive definition.

So, if we are in agreement that many/most sects of terrorists are privateers and we have the stated policy that we have regarding money and comfort that should have informed policy much more than it has. The nations that hire privateers might in some ways be greater enemies than the privateers themselves.