Is there anything to gain from such an attack ?
I dont read much about the financial gain that they get when doing such attack, but of course there is financial benefit behind it as trading is so liberal. In currency trade we can get gain by betting the currency to fall, if I am not mistaken it is called short selling.
"A
short-
seller borrows a
currency, sells it at the current market price, waits for the price to fall and buys the
currency later at a lower price in order to return the loan. So, after you
sell a
currency, you'll have to buy it to close a
short position"
Remember the time is 1997
Despite so I believe it is some sort of attack whose intention is to bankrupt East Asian economy since East Asian (North East and South East Asian) is seen as the next competitive rival of western world after the collapse of USSR (communism). Jews is likely behind this since Jews rely on Western world economy and military (George Soros is a Jew). They are also a big player in financial world as even they have some significant stakes on The Fed (The Fed is not entirely state owned).
Indonesia which is seen as potential Muslim country to raise in the post cold war period also needs to be destroyed economically and if possible should be broken down. Starting from separating East Timor to create a domino effect that can include Aceh and then Maluku (remember religious conflict there 1999-2004).
Indonesia economy is also relatively more benefited from their East Asian brothers like Japanese and Korean in term of industrialization where Western companies here only focus on extraction activity (nickle/gold/oil mining)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington's thesis of civilizational clash
Huntington at the 2004 World Economic Forum
The
Clash of Civilizations is a thesis that people's
cultural and
religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-
Cold War world. The American political scientist
Samuel P. Huntington argued that future wars would be fought not between countries, but between cultures. It was proposed in a 1992 lecture at the
American Enterprise Institute, which was then developed in a 1993
Foreign Affairs article titled "The Clash of Civilizations?"
Huntington argues that the trends of global conflict after the end of the Cold War are increasingly appearing at these civilizational divisions. Wars such as those following the break up of
Yugoslavia, in
Chechnya, and between India and Pakistan were cited as evidence of inter-civilizational conflict. He also argues that the widespread Western belief in the universality of the West's values and political systems is naïve and that continued insistence on democratization and such "universal" norms will only further antagonize other civilizations. Huntington sees the West as reluctant to accept this because it built the international system, wrote its laws, and gave it substance in the form of the
United Nations.
Huntington identifies a major shift of economic, military, and political power from the West to the other civilizations of the world, most significantly to what he identifies as the two "challenger civilizations", Sinic and Islam.
In Huntington's view, East Asian Sinic civilization is culturally asserting itself and its values relative to the West due to its rapid economic growth. Specifically, he believes that China's goals are to reassert itself as the regional
hegemon, and that other countries in the region will 'bandwagon' with China due to the history of hierarchical command structures implicit in the
Confucian Sinic civilization, as opposed to the individualism and pluralism valued in the West. Regional powers such as the two Koreas and Vietnam will acquiesce to Chinese demands and become more supportive of China rather than attempting to oppose it. Huntington therefore believes that the rise of China poses one of the most significant problems and the most powerful long-term threat to the West, as Chinese cultural assertion clashes with the American desire for the lack of a regional hegemony in East Asia.[
citation needed]
Huntington argues that the Islamic civilization has experienced a massive population explosion which is fueling instability both on the
borders of Islam and in its interior, where
fundamentalist movements are becoming increasingly popular. Manifestations of what he terms the "
Islamic Resurgence" include the
1979 Iranian revolution and the first
Gulf War. Perhaps the most controversial statement Huntington made in the
Foreign Affairs article was that "Islam has bloody borders". Huntington believes this to be a real consequence of several factors, including the previously mentioned Muslim
youth bulge and population growth and Islamic proximity to many civilizations including Sinic, Orthodox, Western, and African.
Huntington sees Islamic civilization as a potential ally to China, both having more revisionist goals and sharing common conflicts with other civilizations, especially the West. Specifically, he identifies common Chinese and Islamic interests in the areas of weapons proliferation, human rights, and democracy that conflict with those of the West, and feels that these are areas in which the two civilizations will cooperate.
en.wikipedia.org