Changing rules of warfare ... (let's include China)

Submitted by Chuck Ingerson (United States), Jul 24, 2003 at 12:47

Within the changing rules of warfare the nail has been hit. However, let's look beyond the surface and answer the intriguing question, "Who's the most to gain or the least to lose?" Terrorist's come and go and to a degree depend on the 'acceptance' of others. Their money, weapons, hideouts are all provided from outside of themselves which is apply pointed out in Daniel Pipes article. So who's doing the funding, etc.?

Over the years I've learned to answer this question by trying to learn who's the most to gain or the least to lose. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 how many remember that the World Trade Organization voted to allow China to be a member? Actually, within two weeks. Why they'd met none of the criteria in the area of human rights; they continued their threat against Taiwan and others; and they continued to support terrorism, North Korea and give arms to whoever wants them. A book which is somewhat more popular now than prior to 9/11, entitled, "Unrestricted Warfare (Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, 1999)" is a script for attacking the US. This blueprint (if you will) describes how nations like China and others can attack the US without the sacrifice of troops or whole scale warfare (as normally defined in Mr. Pipe's article).

Where did the planes hit? In the center of the financial district of the US, the Pentagon and one could guess where the others were headed. What did they attack? The financial well being of the US. This well being is the confidence of the people, not necessarily the money backing. One needs to remember all of history is fair to play with when seeking similarities, therefore, in 1638 the Dutch fleet captured the Spanish fleet coming out the Americas. It took another thirty years but eventually Spain was no longer a major player in world affairs. In today's marketplace with the news, dissemination of information, loss of jobs, insurance claims, political intrigue, the effects are dramatized much quicker with the spin needed to push various agenda's not necessarily the truth. Now in two years with China a member of the WTO, they've added to this burden in the US with backing out of agreements to buy farming goods worth at a minimum of $500,000,000. This isn't reported or acknowledged!

Where else can we see this idea blossom? In the educational centers, publications, ranting and the rewriting of history so badly that the truth now appears to be revisionist. Rights protected to destroy the foundation of moral and virtue, while those who defend these rights are dragged through the muck and mire. The idea is to keep attacking regardless of right or wrong; truth or fiction. In the 1930's the fruitarian of the 'big lie' told often enough gains credibility, this is what's seen and preached today.

Well enough - sorry got carried away - chuck

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".