US tragedy [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

kbf1

13th Sep 2001, 01:43

When I was told what happened yesterday I could scarcely believe what i was hearing. It was almost too incredible to believe, a plot from a Die Hard movie. I watched on in absolute shock as i saw the South tower of the WTC collapse. I felt a sense of numbness as I watched the footage of the 767 collide into the tower.

I sat on a train to Manchester reading the first news reports. I couldn't help but imagine what was going hrough the minds of the passengers on those planes as they called loved ones for the last time knowing that they were about to die. I could not contemplate the sheer terror, horror, and resignation that those souls must have encountered in their final moments. Nor could i imagine what sheer terror and desperation could cause anyone to jump, hand in hand with their loved one, from the 90th floor of a building to certain death.

I lay awake last night thinking of my sister-in-law who having lived in New york until a few months ago has friends in the city. I worried about her boyfriend who still lives and works in Manhatten. The tension of not knowing his whereabouts until this evening was almost unbearable, as was the uncertainty of the friends in DC who could have been too close to the Pentagon for comfort.

This tragedy affects more than the immediate victims of the attacks. It touches the lives of so many Americans, and so many others of us that it is hard to contemplate. It will take a long time to absorb the shock and come to terms with the sheer devistation we have witnessed. We must mourn. We must grieve. More importantly, while bringing justice to bear, we must be merciful.

Requiem aeternam secundam domine. Et lux perpetua luceat eis.

Max R8

13th Sep 2001, 02:03

I heard about what happened from our groundcrew as I walked in yesterday. When I was told that an American Airlines jet was involved I felt sick with shock, my sister is a 767 pilot for them. I went home and tried to dial her home to no avail. About 2 hours after the event my family called to say that she had been flying from Miami to San Fransisco that morning but was not one of the jets involved. ATC had told them that all aircraft were to land at the nearest suitable due to a National Emergeancy. She was safe on the ground at Austin Tx in 20 mins by all account. The personal relief I felt was as great as my horror over the magnitude of this event.

My feelings turned to disgust today as I listened to pundits on the media who jumped on the "They brought it on themselves" bandwagon. The casual anti-American prejudices expressed would have been illegal if expressed about certain ethnic minorities in this country. It is the easy and insidious anti-USA statements (bloody stupid yanks..etc) that feed and fuel the fanatic rantings of those responsible for this act. B***er measured responce. I feel the USA has every right to strike those who support and foster terrorist attacks against them with every means at their disposal. As I spoke to friends and relatives over there yeaterday I felt that they would glass Bagdahd and Kabul in a wink if they could push the button. Any responce less than that would be measured and proportional.

Jacko, there is much evil in the world we would all like to stop. But the line is drawn and it is time to take sides. God help us all.

gravity victim

13th Sep 2001, 02:46

Hopefully the IRA will now rattle their collecting tins in vain on the streets of New York. My sickbag is at the ready for Gerry Adams' message of condolence..
I note that Tony Blair is now standing 'foursquare'against terrorism - major shift of Government policy, by the sound of it!

Adastral

13th Sep 2001, 02:50

Jacko is very good at these throwaway one-liners. Yes, they might inspire comment but I can't decide whether Jacko is being a clever journalist or simply a tactless ass.

I would be more interested if he spent time coming up with reasoned solutions and less playing Devil's Advocate. Of course, Jacko may have more sympathy with the Palistinan people than the American civilians and members of the rescue services who died in the Twin Towers, and that would be his democratic right.

However, whatever you think of the way the Israelies are handling their situation, nothing will convince me that the targeting of the World Trade Centre was going to harm anyone except a civilian population?

That is not war, that is murder.

At the moment, my thoughts are with the families of those who have been touched by this needless tragedy.

Lafyar Cokov

13th Sep 2001, 04:56

Ok - Ok.... enough in-fighting, as aviators we surely have to worry from now on..

How many fanatics from all sides of the political/religious fence will see what can be done (and what press coverage can be gained) from the use of a few utility knives and have a go at a similar job.

Secondly - there you are in your F3/SHAR/F16/ etc etc and the order comes in to shoot down a 747 load of civvies (Brits/Yanks or otherwise) with a nut at the helm.... are we really going to do it??? Just asking??

Anyone still want that ATPL????? :confused:

Paterbrat

13th Sep 2001, 05:07

A very valid question,however just throw in the fact that you have just been advised that in the previous twenty minutes there have been two incidents with aircraft being hijacked one crashed into central London and another into fully packed stadium of 60,000. The a/c in front of you had transponded hijack but it was switched off. It is off it's flight route and descending towards Southern London.
If I was on board that aircraft knowing those facts I would sincerely hope that you would shoot.
May our thoughts and sympathies be with all the victims of a truly terrible act. May the instigators be found and retribution find them wherever they are.

[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: Paterbrat ]

Samuel

13th Sep 2001, 08:03

After 25 years in two Royal Air Forces,( and a well-earned scraper to boot)followed by a good number of years in management, let me assure you I heave never made a 'knee-jerk' reaction in my life.

My response was considered, though I suspect Jacko ran that particular flag up the pole to see who saluted it! If I offended him however, then I apologise unresevedly

You have however made an unfortunate comparison. I don't like the situation on the Left Bank any more than that of grown men of one religion abusing kids of another while on their way to school. And have not terrorists been harboured in Ireland since the 1920's?

This act is one of war, and with any luck the US will find itself in a position to hit back at the culprits without starting WW3.

Zoom

13th Sep 2001, 15:28

I join those who send their sincerest condolences to families, friends and acquaintances of the Americans, British and other nationalities lost in this dreadful disaster. But........we must not make matters even worse by 'going to war' as many pundits and politicians seem to desire. George Bush, Colin Powell and the rest must be calm and measured in their response, whose form should be determined with the greatest of care. Their real goal must be the resolution of the human rights issues and abuses, real or perceived, that drive people to become terrorists in the first place. Violence will just produce more violence. Remember, while thousands have died, hundreds of millions around the world are still alive and want to continue that way, especially as a considerable proportion of them have probably been totally unmoved and unaffected by this whole ghastly business.

pana

13th Sep 2001, 19:54

OK Samuel, maybe you got the real point of Jacko's post. I didn't want to sent any more posts for this topic, but even I was very surprised by Jacko's answer having in mind that he is from UK. Actually, I think that there is three possibilities for his answer:
1. he really thinks what he said, which I doubt
2. it was little indirect provocation for me inspired by my location and supposing my nationality (he didn't want to say "Yes and what about bombing YU...")
3.it was direct provocation to me, but it would be the proof that Jacko isn't a pilot, because he doesn't know the geography.
Even if No1 is truth and he is a pilot than he doesn't deserve that title. But, according to Infinretirement, he had completely opposite attitude at chat and it points to No2.
Jacko, you little noty devil, you thought that you will provoke me. Sorry, I was really sincere. Topic which can be derived from your reply is for some other occation (we can speak about it for years). This what happened is a global danger and it can happen in any country. Indirect responsibility of any country for this (e.g. USA...) is obvious, but, again, this is no moment for such a discussion.

Jackonicko

14th Sep 2001, 02:51

OK. I'll say this only once, though I'm cross, so I may ramble!

Some of you need to read more carefully, and less hot-headedly, just as I clearly need to spell things out more carefully.

It should go without saying that naturally (as a Brit) I'm shocked, horrified and disgusted at the atrocities visited on innocent civilians in the USA on Tuesday. I occasionally work for a company based within yards of the WTC. Some of my closest friends are American, and some work in the other building targeted. Naturally, I send my condolences to anyone even remotely affected by this god-awful carnage.

My post, however (brief cos I was in a rush, and the forums were unreliable and hard to get on) contained the magic words 'AS WELL'.

And the crux of this entire situation is that it doesn't have to be an either/or choice, when it comes to compassion. I fear that anyone who reads anti-US hostility into a remark about the need for compassion and condolences for the victims of other terrorist activities (and I'm afraid that indiscriminate use of AH-64s, and car-bombing politicians comes into that category, in my book) is probably part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Nothing could ever justify or excuse what these hi-jacking bastards did to so many innocent civilians, nor am I in any way trying to suggest that what Israel has done recently is equivalent in terms of either scale or evil. I do have huge sympathy for the Palestinians but acknowledge that the scale of the disaster that has befallen them is nothing compared to the holocaust in Manhattan. If pressed, I'd have to say I have more sympathy for the US victims, who share my language, culture and history, and most sympathy of all for the rescue services and police personnel who died in the line of duty. But we shouldn't have to 'rank' or order sympathy or compassion.

But unless we understand the lessons of history we are condemning ourselves to repeating its mistakes, and we must understand and realise that the Palestinian/Arab/Moslem world perception of US support for what they see as an oppressive, 'occupying' power, and which they see as acting as in a brutal and inhuman way is bound to result in the kind of hostility which makes this sort of terrorism possible (and, shockingly, even popular in those parts of the world).

Any sensible historian would blame an unduly harsh peace settlement in 1918 for the rise of Hitler, but in condemning Versailles, he would not in any way be validating or supporting a single one of Hitler's policies. And by pointing out injustice in Palestine, I'm not in any way condoning the actions of these murdering thugs. I was absurdly pleased to see Yasser Arafat and even Colonel G come out with fairly robust condemnations.

But unless we understand where the Islamic world is coming from, and unless we show them that we have pity and compassion for them, how can we ever expect to solve this problem?

Any reprisals must be measured, appropriate and 'fastidious' and be seen to be that, if we wish to ameliorate the situation, rather than exacerbate it. In a well-worn phrase, we must be tough on terrorism, but also just, fair and tough on the causes of terrorism. Many Israelis are profoundly uncomfortable with the way that their government is handling the 'Palestinian situation' (see reports on a draft-dodging crisis in today's (?) Telegraph), so it should not be unreasonable for us to make similar criticisms, without being accused of anti-semitism, or worse.

I would condemn all terrorism (including the vicious barbarity of the PLO in decades gone by) and all of those who have given terrorists succour or sustenance. How horrifyingly and bitterly ironic that some of these aircraft took off from Boston - Noraid capital of the USA - I must confess to feeling great regret that this out-pouring of hatred against terrorism didn't come earlier, when it might have saved lives in Northern Ireland.

For Adastral, a reasoned solution might be to ensure that all reprisals are precisely targeted and highly discriminatory, and to avoid civilian casualties scrupulously. In view of the success of George Bush Srs approach in 1991 (when Arab nations were kept 'on board' by keeping Israel at arms length) perhaps the international community should follow a dual-track approach, simultaneously forcing Israel to abide by relevant UN resolutions, and even to cede the West bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, and to withdraw troops and settlements from illegally occupied territories. This might be achieved through the threat of withdrawing military aid and imposing arms embargos, but with the carrot of providing sufficient forces to guarantee Israel's legitimate security concerns. Unfortunately, the extremists on both sides (the PFLP, Fatah, and the Jewish lobby in the USA) would never allow any such thing.

Let me re-state my central point. Raising a gentle reminder about other atrocities that may have contributed to this one in no way reduces my hatred and contempt for the perpetrators of this disgusting and sick outrage. I apologise for not making that clear in my original post.

DESPERADO

14th Sep 2001, 03:10

I watched the whole thing live on TV and have never been so shocked and horrified in my life. My heart goes out to the people murdered and maimed as well as their families. I have a number of relatives in NY, who thankfully are ok. This was an attack on the free world and democracy, it has little to do with religion. There were also 100 (at last count) of my own countrymen killed.

Jacko, what you said was provocative and unnecessary. I think very few of us (except perhaps those that were around in the Blitz)have experienced what it is like to be fighting every day for the very existence of your nation. Israel, (incidently the only democracy in the region) has been fighting for its life for 50 years. Surrounded by people that hate them, they have learnt to fight for what they have, I don't blame them. Does anybody out there believe that the Israeli's don't want peace? Yes they have killed innocent people, but they are at war and always have been. We have killed millions of innocents in Dresden and Hiroshima and still we justify it today as a means to an end. I get annoyed by people who seem to think that all that happens in the middle east is the fault of Israel. They just want to survive, if it was my country and the lives of my people at stake I would do the same. If the nations surrounding Israel had won on Yom Kippur or any of the many battles fought over that tiny strip of land, the genocide meted out on the Jewish people would have made Srebenica look like a playground brawl.
They have made many mistakes, but on balance I have to say that when you are fighting for your very survival sometimes you do bad things. Simplistic my attitude may be, but its from the heart.

Love to hear some constructive debate from you Jacko, rather than the shock headline stuff.

Zoom,
do you really believe that if we don't react in the appropriate way the violence will end? Yes violence begets violence, but sometimes there is no other answer, if I didn't believe that I wouldn't be in the military. An attack on my countryman is an attack on my nation, I serve to defend my nation, thats one of the reasons why I do it. These people will not stop because they have no reason to. Much like the IRA who will not stop beatings and intimidation and murder because their atrocities have been rewarded with power and status.

Despo

Adastral

14th Sep 2001, 03:24

Well, if you had come out with that statement at the start of this topic, things might not have got so heated?!

Having crossed swords with you previously over your ill-aimed 'one-liners', I am beginning to suspect that you do it deliberately? Best be careful though Jacko - you know the story about the boy who kept crying 'Wolf!'?

I must confess that I also hope a balanced solution can be found. There has to be some hope in that the major world powers all seem to agree that this atrocity cannot go unpunished. The danger is that things cannot be allowed to spiral out of control.

With a calm head we must realise that these acts have been orchestrated by an evil minority. We need to go about removing them as cleanly and precisely as a surgeon would operate - not wade in with a chainsaw.

As emotional as these last few days have been, I pray that the rest of the world can stand together in condemnation of the acts of terrorism and work sensibly towards ridding us all of this type of threat.

Let us not allow a few extremists dictate the future for the peaceful majority.

DESPERADO

14th Sep 2001, 05:42

Jacko,
Yes lets look at history. How ironic that the father of modern terrorism, Mr Y Arafat should be seen giving blood on TV for the USA.
You appear to be saying that it is all pretty one sided Zionist conspiracy against the poor put upon Palestinian people. yes the Israeli's have often been brutal, but so have, and so are the palestinians, we have been watching the aftermath of suicide bombers in Israel on our TV screens for a number of years now. Comparisons can be drawn between SinnFein and the current activities of the Real IRA, and the Palestinian govts lack of actions and even words to prevent the carnage that is reaped on Israel's streets as a weekly event.
I am also aware that Britain suffered at the hands of jewish extremists in Palestine in the earlier part of this century, but I also believe that Israel now has a right to exist peacefully without being attacked by its neighbours. I believe that is what most Israeli's want. I am not convinced that this is what most of the Palestinian people want. I believe that the Palestinians will never be happy until the state of Israel is destroyed.
In case you are wondering I am neither a Jew or Anti-Muslim.

Jackonicko

14th Sep 2001, 13:28

I have already acknowledged and condemned PLO terrorism. Naturally I condemn Fatah terrorism today. Naturally Israel has a write to exist - but only if it can do so in peaceful coexistance with its neighbours and indigenous population. I'm uncomfortable that Arafat has not done more to reign in the hot-heads, but equally, I'm astonished at the relative moderation with which the Palestinians have accepted the tiny concessions they have been given. We should remember that much of what is now Israel was seized by force of arms in 1967, and that there are outstanding UN resolutions against the Israeli state. I'm in no way anti-Jewish, but I do believe that the extremist zionist government of Israel will continue to be a force for instability, terrorism and war until the Palestinians receive a fair and equitable deal.

gravity victim

14th Sep 2001, 16:08

In support of Jackonicko, we should bear in mind a terribly simple human fact- when you kill fathers, you will eventually have their sons to reckon with - whether American, Palestinian, Israeli,whatever. The poet who said 'Every man's death diminishes me' was not excluding Muslims.

Bush is in an awful situation, and revenge is a powerful instinct, but I hope his advisers think of the long-term implications of bouncing the rubble in faraway places. The future has to be about damping down extremist hatred of the US, maybe by using its huge wealth and influence to try and improve the generally miserable lives of ordinary people in some of these grim Islamic countries.

Mind you, this does not mean that the known terrorist figureheads, such as Ben Laden should not be hunted down and dealt with as individuals.

floppyjock

14th Sep 2001, 20:08

Im with jacko too. The main cause of trouble in the Middle East is Israel. Yes I agree they have a right to exist. But let them do so on their own. Its no surprise the Arab nations hate the west when it is US built gunships firing US built missiles at them.

Up Very Gently

14th Sep 2001, 20:53

Gravity victim, lets not forget that there is a large and powerful Jewish minority in the USA, who naturally feel that they should support their kin, and rightly do so. Without the USA, Israel would't exist, and/or the entire Middle East would have long been a radioactive wasteland.

And why is it up to America to use its "vast wealth" to improve the lives of ordinary people in some grim Islamic countries? Surely it has to be up to those incredibly wealthy oil rich nations in the region. Incidentally, if a lot of those "grim" countries weren't run by murderous psychopaths, they might have a chance of improving their lot. At least the French had "Resistance". What do the dissenters in Iraq/Iran et al do? Last I saw, they were crossing the Channel in their hundreds!

UVG

Jackonicko

14th Sep 2001, 21:53

The USA has a duty to solve the problem in the Middle East, because its support for Israel (and Israeli repression) has exacerbated the problem.

The USA ought to want to solve the problem, since the problem has just cost it the lives of thousands of its citizens. Thus there is a moral imperative and a practical reason to do something. How tragic that the Jewish lobby in the USA will prevent any such solution.

heloplt

14th Sep 2001, 23:07

I am a "Loud American" and proud of it, more so during the past four days than ever before. The sentiments expressed in the messages above finally made me want to respond. Pull up a chair and listen to one Yank's view of all this.

We are the only "Super Power" left in the world. Along with that privilege comes both reponsibility and liability. We are a young country, founded upon beliefs that are unique within the world. We have had our successes and we have had our failures. When we fail, the matter is not hidden or ignored. We let our citizens review our governments actions and determine the manner in which our national business is conducted.

We have fought oppression and other evil forms of government that sought to enslave mankind. Each time we made our sacrifice to defend democracy and individual freedom , we returned our armies to our own shores.

After WW II, we fed the starving nations, friend and foe alike, until they were able to fend for themselves. Our Marshall plan provided the ability for the UK and European nations to return to prosperity. We forgave and forgot Billions of dollars of war debts and reparations.

We fought bloody wars, hot and cold, against communism and its agression with little or no assistance from the Europeans. Today, due to our efforts, freedom exists in all of the Western world, the Iron Curtain is no more.

We have stood fast beside the only democracy in the middle east while its neighbors have waged wars of annililation against it.

In times of natural disaster, my country is among the first to offer assistance and aid. When we have our own natural disasters, not one European nation or the UK can find its way to our shores.

We stood beside you for all these years even when it was not in our interest to do so and this is how you offer your thanks. Think about it...do you value your freedoms so little as to ignore how you came to have them. When you needed help we have always been there....are you prepared to do the same for us?

You may not like our policies, you may not like our methods, you may not like us...and you may not like to admit it...but By God... you do owe us.

We have walked upon the Moon, several times, and returned the men safely to the Earth. Our economy drives the world economy. Our technology leads the world. When you think that we stand alone you are wrong....the Western World nations need one another in order to stave off the assault against democracy and liberty that is coming from other parts of the world. British foreign policy is entertwined with ours, European interests are the same as ours in this matter. It is time to stand together and find a solution for peace for without it...there is going to be more wars and loss of human life.

gravity victim

14th Sep 2001, 23:39

Heloplt,
Amen to that.

Kulu

14th Sep 2001, 23:43

I would simply like to add my own condolences to those who lost friends and family in the terrible events earlier this week. I don't really have the words to express the depth of my sympathies.

rolling20

15th Sep 2001, 00:29

Duff Gen INFINRETIREMENT.
for the whole of WW2 60595 UK civilians were killed by enemy action!

Jackonicko

15th Sep 2001, 00:36

Heloplt,

As a generally pro-American Brit, with many American friends, I am shocked at the arrogance and American-centric views inherent in your post.

Just a few of the ducks that need shooting:

The 'unique' ideas on which your (admittedly great) nation was founded were mostly European in origin.

I'm sure that the UK military pilots, especially the older ones, will be fascinated to know how little they contributed to the ' bloody wars, hot and cold', against communism and that they, and our NATO allies provided so little assistance (or even none at all) in ensuring freedom in the Western world.

The US has often fought oppression, but has also propped up and supported some almost equally nasty regimes in the name of national expediency, economic interest or the American jihad against 'Communism'.

Older PPRuNers will laugh at your remarks about America's single-handed efforts to feed the starving and restore Europe's economies, and of the way in which you 'forgave and forgot Billions of dollars of war debts and reparations'. Any serious historian will be able to give you chapter and verse on the cost of US aid (and especially lend-lease) and the effect it had on Britain, post-war. And any cynical bastard like me will point out that American maganimity and largesse was such that you stayed out of the war (a war being fought for freedom, and against tyranny) until you had been directly attacked. Here in Europe, the war began in September 1939, not on your 'Day of Infamy'. (We may also feel that we've had a similar 'head start' in the war against terrorism).

Any nation which persecutes its indigenous population has little claim on the word democracy, so your description of Israel as 'the only democracy in the middle east' has a hollow ring to it. Israel is the newest colonialist, oppressive, racist regime, and can be seen to be as misguided and immoral as was South Africa. It would be cheap of me to suggest that Arab citizens in Palestine are treated like black people were in the USA - second class citizens whose aspirations were deemed to be of no consequence. How did racial segregation tally with those unique characteristics ideas and attributes on which the USA was founded?

Moreover, while there was a time when Israel's paranoia and aggressive stance were entirely justified by the determination of its neighbours to destroy it, the country is no longer in that position, and all even the PLO are asking for is the right to have just a small portion of their country as a homeland.

The USA's attitude to Europe in general and to Britain in particular has always been complex, and with the real friendship their has often been mutual jealousy and suspicion. Many would question whether your 'standing beside us for all these years' has been enttirely selfless and altruistic, and would remind you of your late entries to both World Wars, and to Suez, and to your disregard of internationally agreed protocols on the environment to give examples of when you have let us down very badly indeed, in pursuit of narrow self interest.

The USA has been a great friend and an invaluable ally, don't get me wrong, and we all owe America a debt of thanks for all that it has done. But we do not need lectures from you on what debts we owe, or why, nor on the magnificence and untarnished virtue of a great country which nonetheless has the usual array of flaws and problems. The way in which you ignore the sacrifices we have made in defence of our mutual security, and in defence of your freedom as well as ours, is just plain offensive.

I can at least agree with you that the Western nations need one another, and that our foreign policy is entertwined with yours, but would caution you against assuming that you necessarily have any right to unquestioning obedience or blind loyalty within that relationship. Any relationship must be based on mutual respect and partnership, which is why it is so vitally important that we fight both terrorism, and the underlying causes of terrorism, which include third world debt, and US policy in the Middle East.

It's time for a change, in order to make this world a better place. Without such a change "there are going to be more wars and more loss of human life."

gravity victim

15th Sep 2001, 03:20

Jackonicko,
Amen to that as well!

I'm now confused and will therefore go off for a drink to consider matters from all sides...

Lafyar Cokov

15th Sep 2001, 04:31

Heloplt - While I'm sure you feel very strongly about your views here - and to add a little joviality to the depressing rut this theme has got into - I would just ask you to verify the basis behind the statement: "Our Techology Leads the World"

Computers/Semiconductors: British
The Motor Car: German
The Internet: British
Radio: Italian
Rocket Propulsion: German
Supersonic Passenger Travel: British
The Hovercraft: British
Genetic Fingerprinting: British
Television: British
Telephone: British

errr

Nuclear War: American!!!

(Plese take this post in the humerous vain with which it was intended!!!)
;)

Roc

15th Sep 2001, 06:47

Lafyar Cokav, Jackonicko and all,

Nuclear War - American!! and you should get on your knees and thank whatever God you pray to that it wasn't invented by others!!

While Heloplt's sentiments aren't historically correct, and often wrong, He is venting alot of frustaration and anger felt by most Americans. I am humbled by the show of support from all nations and peoples, I know the British especially, will be by our side, more than any other nation, I'm sure..After this weeks events, maybe some of Israels actions seem justified. I can tell you one thing for sure, The people of the US are about to unleash a powerful and terrible force upon the cowards and nations behind this act. This is not meant to be boastful, it will come to pass. I live within a few miles of NY, and while the people are hurting, and shocked, there is a frightening undercurrent of RAGE. I fought during Desert Storm, and while the people rallied behind the troops, there was alot of debate about whether we should be there etc..Today, I'm witnessing no such sentiments or fears. We will get these criminals with or without world support. I notice, as well, many stating to think things through, the sons of these fathers who will die may come back to haunt us etc...well, where are all the sons of Hitler's legions, or Hirohito's. As military men, we have known for years where these terrorists are, and, could have easily taken care of them except for the contraints of diplomacy and soverign nation status. Well thats all out the window now, the rule book is being rewritten, coalition or no coalition. Its a little bit scary, I'm sure I'll be heading off somewhere soon, but I look forward to getting even..that is the scary part!! and I'm not alone. I've never seen America in this state of mind.

West Coast

15th Sep 2001, 09:20

Jacko
You need to be introspective before you cast stones beyond your shores, something in my short time here you have been lacking. That bears repeating for emphasis, the man who criticizes is one who has not looked at his own actions with a critical eye. If you need help with that, dont ask me, as that would make me a hypocrite also. Sure, its a metaphor, but it fits.
While a convienant tie in to your arguement as the issue is, the genesis of Bin Ladins anger at the U.S. is not over the Palestinien issue. That is secondary, and could be argued as a tertiary cause. The conflict there garners the press(as I understand, you fall into this category) and thus through volume most consider this as the root. The truth is his view of the desecration of his holyland in 90/91 by U.S. troops. By this definition, many other western countries should fear him also. In addition and accompying this is his view that that the U.S. is propping up a government in the Saudi kingdom that is far more secular than he would like. I say secular, not in the context that westerners understand, but one that is not governed by his strict understanding of the Koran Finially he is a man in need of an enemy. With an enemy that has a face, you can galvanize followers. The last sentance applies to his followers, and after 9/11 to the United States also.

Big Green Arrow

15th Sep 2001, 10:38

My heart felt condolences go out to everyone who has been touched in some way by this awful act of cowardice and malice. There probably isn't anyone who hasn't been affected by this tragedy in some way or other...for one so often described as 'loquatious', I am, for once, stuck for words.....................................................

DESPERADO

15th Sep 2001, 11:53

Jacko,
Yet again you astound me with your view of history. Do you really believe that Israel's neighbours don't still want to destroy it? The poor Palestinians have been butchering Israeli citizens for decades and the USA has seen fit to help Israel in its fight. Personally, I'm one Brit who doesn't have a problem with that, and if my govt see's fit to send me to war at the side of our American friends then TB will have regained some respect from me after the surrender in NI.
You sneer at Israel's democracy, I for one believe that it is significantly better than the 'democracy' displayed by Israel's neighbours. By the way, muslim Israeli's are allowed to vote in Israel, your comparison to South Africa in the bad days is fatuous.
I don't deny that the Israeli's are making mistakes, but I still believe that Israel is fighting for its survival, and its way of life. Yes that land was taken in 1967, but Israel has tried to negotiate with the Palestinians. You state that Israel is to blame for all of the trouble in the middle-east, please explain as I am fascinated to hear what they are supposed to do if they cannot defend themselves.
Apologies for the scattiness of the post but my blood is starting to boil.

Heloplt, I am with you in your sentiments in general, however Jacko has a point we did our share too and took a lot of **** before you guys turned up.

Finally, again I offer my condolences and my tears, I hope that my govt offers my help!

Adastral

15th Sep 2001, 14:23

I realise that I will now be adding to the melting point, and there have been some valid points made on all sides; however, some are in danger of missing the point.

Whilst I have enormous sympathy and support for the American people and would not dream of maligning their rage at this dark time, I do note (with a sense of irony) that it is unfortunate that it should take such a direct act of barbarity for them to wake up to the realities of the world.

How many Americans in previous years looked scornfully at the UK with regard to Northern Ireland? How much money has flowed across the pond into the coffers of the IRA terrorists? When the pot is passed around next St Patrick's day, will you be so keen to give your support to this terrorist cause?

And before anyone remarks on the unprecidented scale of the attacks in America, I would like to point out that it should not matter how many lose their lifes. The families at Omagh, Enniskillen or countless other places in the province don't grieve any less.

Last night, up North, we remembered 'The Few' in our Battle of Britain function. Canadian's, Czecs, Poles, French - several nations together (but not, at this point, American) fought valiently to preserve the liberty of Europe. When did we get the support of our Ex-colonial colleagues? Only after they suffered a direct, and equally surprising, attack the following year.

Don't misinterpret my remarks. I am disgusted by the carnage that has been inflicted and, yes, it is of an unprecedented scale. But we in the UK have lived with the threat of terrorism for years. For the Americans it is a relatively new, and I am sure they are finding distasteful, phenomena.

But, don't be too hasty in calling in 'debts'. Certainly don't be too hasty in baying for revenge. These acts must not go unpunished - but don't be so blinded by emotion that a reasoned response is lost.

Whatever needs to be done to bring these terrorists to justice should be the priority of all law abiding nations - not just the USA.

We stand with you in condemnation of these acts. Let this be the catalyst to make us stand against all terrorism.

Oh! And, by the way. Most of the 'British' inventors hailed earlier on were, in fact, Scottish!!!

Jackonicko

15th Sep 2001, 14:50

West Coast: Excellent post, and quite right about what drives Bin Laden himself, though what has given him mass support is his stance on the Palestinians. This is an issue that has cleverly and cynically been used by Saddam and Colonel G in the past, as well, and to pretend that it is not the main irritant in the Arab world is a mistake. US troops out of the Holy lands doesn't generally inspire the general Arab public (the suicide bombers maybe) - liberating Palestine, or justice for the Palestinians is a popular and respectable cause in the ME, and has already been used as justification for these heinous acts of barbarism, which I condemn whole heartedly.

Desperado. Your summary of the Israel situation seems 25 years out of date. Which of Israel's neighbours is 'bent' on its destruction today? (I'll allow you Iraq). Not even the PLO. And which side is today butchering which?

I'm sorry you don't like my comparison between South Africa and Israel. I believe that any comparison is unjust to South Africa, rather than to Israel. BOSS never car-bombed people. The SAAF never rocketed ANC men's cars and flats (and certainly not once they were negotiating). The SADF never supervised massacres of innocent refugees in refugee camps. The SADF and SAP did kill people in the townships, but not on the scale that the IDF have killed Palestinians in the Intifada. Their body count of children and teenagers was also significantly lower, and they were never quite so liberal in the use of live ammunition against rioters. While South Africa did launch surgical strikes across its borders, it never invaded them, and never seized the sovereign territory of other states. South Africa always had a policy of trying to establish independent homelands for the indigenous people, and did not permit random settlement by whites in black or coloured areas. But South Africa was a loathsome place, and I wouldn't want to support it, or apartheid. Israel's actions (especially in recent years) have added to an already equally nasty apartheid policy, and in my view (and that of the UN), have put it firmly beyond the pale. What else could they do? Compromise, reach an accomodation with the Palestinians, and live in peace.

If all you want is short-sighted revenge, ignore the question of Israel. If you want to solve the problem and make that revenge 'palateable' to the Arab world address it as well.

PS: Other pieces of 'US technology' - the rifled barrel, the jet engine, manned flight, heavier-than-air flight, spaceflight (manned and unmanned), all metal airplane construction, etc.

Roc

15th Sep 2001, 16:36

Adastral,

Your point about America's involvment in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor is flawwed. You are looking at it through the jaundiced eyes of time. Prior to 1941 America did not wish to be a world power (militarily) we were quite content to see after ourselves. Our nation is huge, vast, and can supply much if not all of what we needed. On the other hand may European nations had to trade, interact etc. for survival. We did get involved belatedly in WWI, however, as sonn as it ended, America quickly returned to its isolationist ways. It took a direct attack on Pearl harbor to force us to enter the war. Now many in the world expect, or feel it is America's duty to rush to the aid of any nation that needs it, but there was a time when the world looked elsewhere.

heloplt

15th Sep 2001, 17:41

As I recall my post...I never said we did it alone...I said we came to your aid. You say we came late...to some degree that is true but we were providing you the arms and equipment you needed. We did not aid the Germans despite our avowed neutral status. We were there in person before the Pearl Harbor attack too, read your history. We were escorting convoys before Pearl Harbor and lost ships and crews in that effort. Do you remember the destroyer USS Reuben James lost with all hands? The RAF had American Spitfire pilots, The RCAF had American pilots.

Yes, our beliefs in religious and personal freedoms are unique. Read our Constitution and Bill of Rights and compare them to anything you have in the UK. Remember, we not so politely asked you to leave in order to live our beliefs and your nation used force of arms to try to prevent it from happening. You lost that argument.

You and the European nations became engaged in two wars for reasons that did not involve us. Each time we came across a very large ocean, a barrier that protects us, and joined your fight. Each time we paid in blood and national treasury. Each time we returned our armies to our soil. Each time you were able to be on the winning side because of our assistance. The fact you may have had to pay for some of that assistance can not erase the later gifts, donations, loans, and credit that was extended.
I did not mean to embarrass you and walk over your national pride, but the truth needs to be acknowleged.

When we went to Berlin, we went in bombers and fighters, when you went to Hanoi you went with freighters and tankers. Don't talk to me about sitting out a war. The Aussies stood beside us in Vietnam while you were conspicuously absent. How many Brits fought in Southeast Asia beside the Allied forces there? The concept is the same.

We fought that one without you and we are quite prepared to fight this one without you as well. That is the thing about being the big brother in the relationship, you get to fight all the fights, those of your little brother and yours as well. But just as any sibling relationship, unity is the key.

I guess when we get through with this conflict that is coming...the folks that sit it out will be telling us how we screwed it up. Step on down here and show us how it is done ol' bean if you have the courage and resolve to face the enemy. We've blown the bugle ...anyone care to join us?

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Jackonicko

15th Sep 2001, 18:13

A word to the wise.

Never, ever, compare what may well be a 'righteous crusade' against the evil of international terrorism with what many (even in the US) see as a grubby and self-interested intervention in Vietnam. Most Brits are profoundly grateful that we stayed out of that distasteful, unnecessary and ultimately humbling disaster.

I don't want to argue the whys and wherefores of Vietnam - but I'm sure that even you would agree that it is a controversial war, and not one ever likely to have been supported by all of your allies (much like our own intervention in Suez).

As to the unique nature of your beliefs - that may be true today - now that issues like handguns, pornography, drugs and airport security are seen as being primarily about individual freedom - but the ideas on which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were based came straight out of 17th and 18th Century France and England (where they were unable to influence government, except briefly!).

With regard to 'our wars' in which you became involved so graciously, weren't both about defending the freedoms which you're so keen to rabbit on about?

And it's debateable as to whether the outcome of the Great War was influenced much by US intervention. The second world war clearly was - though once Hitler attacked the USSR it's probable that a German victory was never possible. But you did save us decades of struggle and slaughter - while pursuing your own interests too - and Europe will always be grateful for that. But the prices which we respectively paid for the victory in 1945 give an idea of our respective contributions.

Casualties, 1939-45

USSR 31 million
China 11 million
Germany 7 million
Poland 6 million
Japan 1.8 million
Austria 525,000
Great Britain 388,000
USA 293,000
Australia 29,000
Canada 39,000
New Zealand 12,000

Sorry, no figures for France, nor for Britain's other Dominion and Empire nations - India, South Africa, etc.

But why argue. In equal partnership, America and the major European nations are the 'free world' and we could and should be doing good together. My original post was merely intended to reflect the fact that terrorism existed before last Tuesday, and that the fight against it will raise uncomfortable issues.

The issue of Israel is only one such question, to which may be added attitudes to the IRA, and historic episodes including US support for the Contras and the Bay of Pigs. The reason that Palestine is so important in this context is that US policy up to now has exacerbated the situation, and has even stimulated the terrorist forces that have now been unleashed. On moral and practical grounds, the US position on Israel must change.

lids

15th Sep 2001, 18:45

Am I the only person on this site who finds Jacko's History lesson tiresome and totally missing the point? US foreign policy in the Middle East will have to change but in the longer term. And no assessment of this situation, no matter how twisted can equate American foreign policy failures with the hideous use of fully fuelled airliners as missiles. No my friends, this is the time to stand and be counted. Countries across the World will have to decide which side of the line they stand, including moderate Muslim ones. I believe that the time has come to defeat terrorism and that includes apologists for terrorists.
I am ready and willing to fight.

heloplt

15th Sep 2001, 18:52

Jacko...news reports show approximately 100 Brits killed in the terrorist attack on Tuesday. The Americans have declared a war against terrorism and thus have blown the bugle. Are you with us....or not? You cannot sit on fence here Jacko...parsing of words will not cut it....your countrymen died as well in this....what are you going to do Jacko...nip off the pub...pound your fist...tell the blokes how upset you are. Then head off to your club and your Guardian newpaper?

Adastral

15th Sep 2001, 18:54

Helo and Roc

Not wishing to ruin the 'Special relationship' or anything, but you're missing the mark on a number if issues.

To hold the USA as the epitomy of democracy is rose tinted at best. As a relatively young nation you don't have to go back that many years to find examples of racism surely not in keeping with that great Constitution you are so proud of?

Historically, you should probably be thanking the French for your victory in the Wars of Independence (and remember that you were British when you began the conflict?!) and the Russians for shortening WWII.

Can your country be so admired when you openly declare pride that you only pick the fights that you want to get involved in and then scuttle back within your borders once resolved?

Your President had never been outside Continental America before he was elected. Now he wants to lead the rest of the world to war?

I repeat my outrage and condemnation of the acts perpitrated this week. But you cannot be blind to the fact that many other countries have lived with terrorism for years and the US was content to stand idlely by. Fine, it wasn't your problem.

Now you have found that not even the USA is out of reach. But, there is no easy solution.

This terrible situation should be the catalyst for all the nations who believe in democracy (whether it is written down or simply passed by tradition for 2000 years or so) to work together in finding a solution.

No civilized country should be held to randsom by an evil minority. The USA may be the world super power, but you are not facing a tangible enemy that you can easily unleash you military might on. I understand your frustration and the fact that revenge is uppermost in everyones minds, but there is no easy fix.

If you think that you can do it yourselves, you are mistaken. You need support from the rest of the world. Whether you are delighted by the fact or not, the UK (amongst many others) have pledged that support. It is only by our combined and concerted efforts on a political, economic and military front that we will be able to find a solution.

Let's not waste this opportunity.

Samuel

15th Sep 2001, 20:09

Actually Lafyer, the Americans didn't invent nuclear warfare. They, together with the British, expanded on the theory of one Lord Rutherford, a New Zealander,and the first man to split the atom.

Not a lot of people know that!

Low and Slow

15th Sep 2001, 20:41

Just a few facts for the well informed,

1. America supports many regimes in the Middle East. Egypt, Saudi, Kuwait and Israel.
2. The US has, historically and percentagely given more financial support to Mexico, Canada and the UK, than it ever has to Israel.
3. Jordan and Syria have killed many more Palestinians than Israel ever has.
4. Arab nations are also at great risk from extremists.

These facts are all well known. It's just interesting that we choose to ignore them. We would never seek to justify the actions of the Nazi's. Why do we seek to justify the actions of the Extremists?

DESPERADO

15th Sep 2001, 20:56

Been out all day, glad to see that the debate is hotting up.
Jacko, why do you persist with the comparison with South Africa. You appear to be saying that the Israeli's and the apartheid regime were murderers, but that the Israeli's are much nastier. Er, quite. As you would expect I disagree (my particular SA favourite from the hall of shame, was when they drove up and down Soweto in a truck with barrels on the back and then popped up and shot the kids that had just thrown a rock at the truck).
As I said before, at least Israel is a democracy. I still believe that the nations surrounding Israel won't be happy until it is destroyed. If you believe that the Syrians for example wouldn't finish Israel off if they had the power to do so, I think that you are being naive (I am sure that you will put me straight), next you will be telling me that the IRA really meant it when they said that they would put their weapons beyond use. I don't believe that the palestinians want peace either, thats not just 25yrs ago, but now. Yes there is a huge problem, and yes Israel must take some of the blame, but your blanket declaration that Israel is the cause of all thats wrong in the middle east is unfair and I believe innaccurate. Both sides in the argument appear to be unprepared to go that extra step for peace. I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree!

Let's not get into a p155ing competition with our American friends about who did what in which war, its a little undignified and takes us away from our common enemy. Our counties pasts and futures are intertwined and long may it remain so. I realise its not very PC, but lets get it out in the open, the USA wants revenge not just justice. I have no problem with that, I would like to avenge the hundred(s) of my countrymen killed in this dreadful act.
I have to agree with a few of the other comments on the thread though, in that it would be nice if the USA would stop being so welcoming to Gerry Adams and his fund raisers every time that they run out of extortion money. His organization is no better than the one that carried out these attricities it's just that my govt has seen fit to legitimise them.

Cyclic Hotline

15th Sep 2001, 21:58

That this thread could degenerate into the same style as schoolyard bickering, is really alarming.

The battle is against the common enemy of terrorism; it's perpetrators and patrons.

It is not about who has done what, doing what or will do what. It is not about individual interpretation of history or the events that have created the situation today.

It is about the opportunity to unify and combine the resources of the world to engage the threat of terrorism, to whoever, from whoever. It is about an opportunity to unify and combine diverse peoples, religions and politics in the benefit of a common cause and good.

There are people already putting their lives on the line. It is about millions more, who might be asked to do the same. It is about a horror that most normal people hoped would never arrive.

This is not a one nation at war, it is all of us with a common stake in the cause and the outcome. It is about freedom, it is about democracy. It is about maintaining civilisation as we have known it to this time.

UnderPowered

15th Sep 2001, 22:00

Could we all concentrate on being on the same side at a time like this?

P.S. Heloplt - when WE do eventually go, Jacko won't be facing the enemy with us, so I wouldn't bother applying the 'warfighter's' sentiment to his issues.

X Blunty

15th Sep 2001, 22:16

I actually feel quite sickened by some of the comments on this thread. Many of the comments I cannot take issue with; my knowledge and understanding of the Middle East is minimal compared to many of you who are contributing to this debate. But, whilst I am aware that the coming days, weeks and months will have major repercussions on all of our lives, some more than others, I find the mud-slinging and arguments about which country lost more lives in various wars/conflicts etc extremely distasteful.

If the tone of this thread was echoed in a thread about the death of aircrew, there would, quite rightly so, be an outcry.

Can you not stop your bickering and take stock for one moment? Thousands of innocent lives have been lost through the most despicable act of terrorism the world has ever seen. George W Bush, Tony Blair etc etc are in the unenviable position of deciding what to do about it. Their decisions and the resultant action will have a major impact on all our lives, but for now, in the wake of the tradegy and bearing in mind that comments posted on this forum are unlikely to influence any policy decision, please consider the feelings of those Americans and Brits who have relatives and loved ones who are missing, presumed dead and keep our opinions, except those of sympathy to ourselves.

Heartfelt condolences to all those who have been touched by this atrocity...

Flatus Veteranus

15th Sep 2001, 22:19

This thread is "required reading" and should be archived.

Having done two USAF exchange tours I have a huge affinity with, and admiration for, the USA and its values - if not for its peoples' historical awareness. A few points:-

the Uk was not a recipient of Marshal Aid; it was a recipient of Lease/Lend Bread rationing was introduced in UK in 1946 to enable grain to be diverted to Germany The US "Founding Fathers" were British Colonials who, in drawing up the US constitution, drew heavily on British political philosophy and classical scholarship We have got along fine without a "Bill of Rights" because the basic principle of English Common (ie traditional) Law is that you can do whatever you want unless it is prohibited by statute

There are differences in culture between our two nations and air forces. In US values all men are born equal and democracy is the ultimate "good". In British values all men are quite clearly NOT born equal and democracy is merely the least unpleasant form of government. The USAF is superbly professional, but is "checklist-driven". The RAF still, somehow (I hope), relies on individual flair and initiative.

Vive le Différence! :)

Up Very Gently

15th Sep 2001, 22:27

Jesus H, am I missing something here, or what? This thread would appear to have degenerated into a pathetic attempt at one-upmanship and “who’s the best at history”. It is important to remember the lessons of the past, however, the world today stands on the brink of a new dawn. We are where we are today by having shown unity and common purpose in defeating a Greater evil. So what if the Americans entered WW2 late – they came, and because they came, we won. So what if the Brits didn’t go to Vietnam – it was a war that was lost from the outset, and the Brits being there would have done nothing to affect that. And so what if a huge amount of cash is poured into NI from the USA – lots came from Australia too, although that is rarely mentioned.

The policy of the USA in the Middle East is not perfect – but whose is? The actions of Israel do go beyond “reasonable” self-defence, but then which country can claim not to have done the same?

The fact is, in my “O” level educated experience, things have got to change. We, and I mean all peace loving nations, have to make a stand against the Terrorist evil that exists in this world. I don’t give a monkeys if you are black, white, yellow, Christian, Muslim or Church of Latter Day Sheep sh*ggers – unless we want to live in a world of perpetual fear, we have to stand up and be counted. What sort of world do you want to bequeath to your children?

Who cares who did what in the past, or which nationality invented what. We owe it to ourselves as much as we owe it to the USA to stand shoulder to shoulder. After the actions of this week, we should all declare ourselves American.

UVG

Ali Barber

15th Sep 2001, 22:52

As with everyone here, I watched with horror as the airliners flew into the towers. Even more so when I heard that all the passengers had been told what was going to happen. I think I would rather have been blissfully ignorant of my impending doom. But I am also struck by the sense of similarity, even if only photographically, with the pictures of cruise missiles flying up Bagdhad high street and crashing into populated buildings. I am sure I wasn't the only one cheering when that happened, but I wonder if the Middle East doesn't view that image in the same way as we have viewed the attacks in the USA.

Terrorism is not the answer to anything. We have had enough problems with the Irish situation, but we have always targetted the enemy, not the population in general. It looks like we are about to enter into a new type of warfare, with NATO having invoked Charter V, in declaring war on an unspecified organistaion rather than a state. This is going to be a very difficult nut to crack and our targeteers need to be certain that they are going after valid military targets. The population of Kabul has as much right to life, even under what we view as a repressive regime, as the people of the USA, Northern Ireland, Plaestine, Israel, etc. We need a calculated response, clearly targetted agaist the people responsible. We do not need any more martyrs.

BEagle

15th Sep 2001, 23:07

Ali Barber - I think you'll find that the TLAMs in Iraq were specifically targetted against known military installations and that the purpose of that strategy was to achieve minimal collateral damage. Which it did.

The criminals who conducted the appalling attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon did so in a manner purposely designed to maximise the death and injury of entirely innocent civilians. Not much of a comparison with the TLAMs in the Gulf, I contend.

Quite for how long the vast majority of entirely decent Muslims in this world are going to tolerate their peaceful religious beliefs being grossly distorted by these gangs of liars and murderers remains to be seen. Perhaps the Islamic nations will be able to find and execute the guilty in the manner required by the laws of their faith; however, I suspect that it is rather more likely that 'Jake and Ellwood' will be coming to play the BLUes in a certain country very soon and will largely do the job for them...........

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

Captain Kirk

15th Sep 2001, 23:17

Jacko, Heloplt, etc

Methinks that were are losing our way here. Can I humbly suggest that we bury our differences - debate is, of course, important but so is unity and focus, particularly at times like this. Anything less than total and unequivocal condemnation of these despicable acts lends encouragement to the cowards that support these crimes against innocents. We all hope that cool heads prevail in determining a response but for now let us offer nothing less than heartfelt sympathy for our US cousins.

heloplt

16th Sep 2001, 00:52

Just had a telephone conversation with a dear friend and former partner when I worked for a federal law enforcement agency. He has been working inside the crash site at the pentagon since the incident occurred. He reports the people working there are totally committed to their duty, are pulling together and doing anything that can be done, spirits are high, anger is growing.

The crime scene search is continuing, recovery of bodies is beginning. He reports total destruction of the aircraft as can well be expected. NTSB suggests information from the CVR/FDR 's may be limited due to the magnitude of forces and amount of fire damage. American flags are waving,investigative leads of any type are being worked exhaustively. The entire effort is grimly focused upon the matter with no resources being withheld. His spirits are high....he is looking forward to hearing of the President's plans for seeking out the perpetrators and is thankful that not only the perpetrators but those who provide aid and comfort and logistical support or harbor the terrorists are to be dealt with as well.

I shall not repeat the description he provided of the sights his work presents beyond saying it is most grim and heartbreaking. He and his team are seeing the results of the terrorists attack firsthand and close up and personal. They are filling the body bags. As he said..."This is no drill!"

I told him of this website and of some of the positions being put forth by various subsribers. He suggested a visit to the recovery site would cure the most liberal person. He described the scene as being just as gruesome as any other mass murder sight known to history if not worse because of the devastation inflicted by the crash.

He is right...perspective is controlled by your distance from the event.

God Bless their souls...saying a prayer for the dead and injured and those that lost loved ones.

pana

16th Sep 2001, 01:46

Heloplt, your attitude is typical helipilot attitude: you see as far away as you fly high. That means 1-2 miles forward. (apologize to other helicolleagues).

Your country is behaving as any other country in the world: you protect your interests in any/every situatuion.Problem is that you proclaimed that your interests can be thousands of miles away. You gave nothing to anyone unless it was your interest so ,please don't speak that you love whole world and you are patrons of the weaks. It makes me sick. Somebody planned this crime for years and you (I mean all of you) don't want to ask yourself why? Who hates us that much and why? Who spend that much energy and money to organise that crime.
When you bombed us I asked myself why. Are we so bad to turn against us whole world? Probably we are, but you didn't convince me.

The fact is that USA is the strongest country in the world but it also means that USA has the responsibility to keep this world working. You can't act as mad elephant in glasswork shop. Maybe it is time to review your policy. You can't rule the world by the power of weapon. Maybe you can but, than, you can expect same actions with nuclear powerplants as a target, virus of antrax, ebola or whatever. You are not world, you are part of the world, same as my country is, or any other country.

But, after all I hope that you will s***w up those bastards. ;)

Paterbrat

16th Sep 2001, 02:33

A breath of fresh air, here here.
The tragedy that took place has effected us all in ways we have not yet begun to realise. Every single one of us has been touched in some way if not emotionaly certainly financialy, and it's going to get worse. There is a common enemy out there and every country has got some of them, and in the dark and in secret they hatch their nasty plots. The US having suffered the largest and most outrageous atrocity is preparing to do something. If everyone can for a minute stop scoring points and simply concentrate on the job in hand and support them we might stand a chance of getting some co-ordinated effort to stamp out some of the vermin

Jackonicko

16th Sep 2001, 03:36

Lids,
Where do I "equate American foreign policy failures with the hideous use of fully fuelled airliners as missiles?" I hope you are not calling me an apologist for terrorists or terrorism. And since it seems a good point to do so, may I 'unequivocally and totally' condemn the barbarous, murderous, cowardly attacks on the USA last week, and can I place on record my complete support for any course of action which punished those directly responsible.

It should not be a question, BTW of countries standing up and being counted - unless we are to descend to the level of the terrorists we must be discriminating and accurate in our targeting. I wish we could have done more against the Provisional IRA and its active terrorist members, but would never have supported bombing Dublin, or targeting IRA-sympathetic nationalist civilians. There really are not so many 'rogue states' which can be targeted as states (Iraq maybe, North Korea if we could be certain they don't have the bomb, and the hateful Taliban regime in Afghanistan), and I believe that it is incumbent on the international community to attack the guilty, not some convenient scapegoats.

Heloplt
Over here we've been expecting about 500 British casualties, and naturally I'm in favour of punishing the guilty. But while I'd support any action against the terrorist groups responsible, I feel that enough innocent civilians have died already, and although those who committed these atrocities may have been Arabs and moslems that doesn't mean that I'm going to succumb to some kind of blood-lust for revenge against any arabs or moslems - even those who may actually approve of what these bastards have done. I hope the terrorists and the members of their organisations die horrible deaths, but I wish no harm on those I merely disagree with, however much I deplore their attitudes, and however much I despise and hate them. But wanting our revenge to be properly targeted, legal, and effective (and indeed wanting it to have widespread support even among moderate Arabs) is not 'fence-sitting'. No-one's ever accused me of being a left-wing Guardian reading Pansy, before, BTW!

Low & Slow
I'm not trying to justify anything. But if we refuse to acknowledge the source of this terrorism, how are we ever going to defeat it? Acknowledging where the Nazis came from and what caused their rise is not justifying their filthy policies, is it? Though had people recognised what gained them support, they might have been marginalised before they took the world to the brink of catastrophe.

Desperado
I'm not by any means suggesting that Israel has been the cause of all the ME's problems, just that its current policies make it the major obstacle in the way of peace now. The world has moved on since the 1970s, thanks to Sadat, Hussein, Arafat, Peres, and even Assad's son and successor, and peace with honour and security could so easily be achieved. Nor am I really saying that Israel's worse than South Africa was, only that there's little to choose between them.

I hope you are joking about revenge not justice, BTW, otherwise we become no better than terrorists ourselves.

Cyclic, Underpowered,
I hope you realise that those of us who've criticised the more lurid US patriotism and flag waving are gentle critics, who, when the chips are down, will support what our governments and our heroic servicemen do on our behalf. I hope that you will also realise that the discussion of the ME question is an attempt to be helpful.

If all you want is short-sighted revenge, ignore the question of Israel. US policy up to now has exacerbated the ME situation, and has even encouraged and provoked the terrorism we now need to destroy. If you want to solve the problem and also make that revenge 'palateable' to the Arab world, the US position on Palestine/Israel must change. Thus as part of the 'just war' that we all seem to want (me no less than anyone) against international terrorism, on both moral and practical grounds.

To put it at its most simple: We need to gently stroke the Islamic world, showing ourselves to be its friend and ally, while cheerfully kicking the $hit out of its more unacceptable terrorist parts.

X-Blunty,
I'll apologise for descending into point-scoring on America and its record - but there was some pretty major provocation in the form of some people telling us how much we owed them in a fairly arrogant, inaccurate and offensive manner. Fortunately the US and the Brits are good enough friends for such arguments to be of negligible import - and maybe each side needs reminding that the other has been a useful and valuable friend, and that each side has also occasionally let the other down.

Finally (and apologies for the over-long post) I'm not convinced that shutting up and presenting a united front is the right thing to do. I have a suspicion that such a course of action could lead to silence being taken as approval for any course of action - even one which might not live up to the standards of fairness and justice which the USA and Britain have generally been famous for. It could also mean that we will fail to seize an opportunity to correct more than one wrong.

heloplt

16th Sep 2001, 04:25

Jacko...all I opined is that you might retire to a smoke filled room and soft chair to peruse a Guardian newspaper....never even dreamt you might be light in the loafers....but liberal leanings and all...well heck...politics does make strange bedfellows I guess!

I am quite sure the entire scheme of international relations and the way Terrorism is being viewed by every nation is under review. There is no doubt that our leaders shall take a very measured approach to what we do and shall seek the broadest consensus amongst friendly nations as is possible. There is no doubt the chaps in the front office are concerned with causes as well as methods and capabilities of the terrorists. It would be overly simplistic to think our state department has not done very carefully thought out risk/gain analysis on our support of Israel. Take yourself back to the Gulf War and how we managed to restrain the Israeli response to the Scud attacks. That was a very close call...if the Israelis had gotten involved..the coalition could very well have come apart.

I maintain the situation we have here today is quite similar to the years leading up to World War II. If we had stood up to Hitler earlier we very well could have avoided that war altogether. Today , the real threat and concern is not the WTC attack but rather the concern that a terrorist group will one day have real weapons of mass destruction either nukes or bio/chem weapons. If they do, and can remain organized to the degree they are now, the Western world is really in for disaster. I submit that the driving reason behind this new approach to terrorism is to try to set that danger back as much as possible. There shall always be terrorists...as long as there is political/economical strife amongst the world's populations. There are times I wish I lived in the Falklands or on the southern end of New Zealand when I think what nuclear war/terrorist attacks with nukes can be like.

MarkD

16th Sep 2001, 05:15

Hmm... could be taking things off on a tangent but was re-reading a book called "Under a Sickle Moon" last night, based on an English journo's trip through Afghanistan in 84.

One thing that especially struck me was that anytime the locals tried to set up a mosque *or a school* the "Shuravi" knocked it over, presumably with Hind or Frogfoot.

People call the Taleban ignorant, but the Soviet-backed regime obviously had the aim of keeping these people as ignorant as possible. Thus all they could fall back on was oral tradition as expressed through their religion. The disgrace that is the border refugee camps in areas like Peshawar and the minimal real support given to the mujahedin means they have no reason to trust "the international community" since said community has done ****** all for them.

My point is: instead of Mr. Putin sending his condolences to the US, why doesn't he apologise for his country's assistence in fcuking up the country when OBL is now hiding? And shouldn't the "international community" think very carefully about what attacking *any* target other than a bloody obvious terrorist camp [not one that looks like a pharmaceutical factory] would do to entrench the Taleban, as this attack has entrenched GWB?

I'm NOT saying, don't go get him. I'm just saying, they have their reasons not to want to be helpful.

trustno1

16th Sep 2001, 05:25

I hear from some friends in Ireland that Saturday 15th has seen an extraordinary amount of US military traffic cross Irish airspace today travelling from the west. From my own point of view I hope and pray that they are sucessful in their missions and pray that God will take care of them. Best of Luck !!

UnderPowered

16th Sep 2001, 16:03

Jacko,

"To put it at its most simple: We need to gently stroke the Islamic world, showing ourselves to be its friend and ally, while cheerfully kicking the $hit out of its more unacceptable terrorist parts."

I believe that this is exactly what we will do, so sit back and have a little faith, my friend. I'll bet you a fiver.

Jackonicko

16th Sep 2001, 17:32

Underpowered

An optimist! How refreshing. Let's hope that you are right.

JN

lids

16th Sep 2001, 17:46

Reports in todays Telegraph suggest that Americans are not 'depending' on support from France or Germany and that Britain is the only nation that will stand shoulder to shoulder with the US when the going gets tough. For Britmil personnel who are not already on exercise sounds like a spot of bagpacking might be in order. I for one believe that America will commit ground troops and I also believe that if there is such a thing as a just war this is the one.

Yozzer

16th Sep 2001, 19:25

lids said:

I for one believe that America will commit ground troops and I also believe that if there is such a thing as a just war this is the one.

....and I believe that like the Soviets before us, they would get their arses kicked. What have Yugoslavia v Germany and Afghanistan V Russia got in common? No not the world cup you fool! In both cases the locals won due to it being their patch requiring their mentality to survive. You could say the same about Viet Nam. An SF only war may have a chance backed up by significant air power without the restraints of Hanoi. A large ground force would keep undertakers nicely in business.

Wonder where all the spy satellites are parked at present? A needle in a haystack, no a pain in an enormous ****.

Anyone know what "toys" the Taliban have to hand? Stinger would ruin someones day!

John Nichol

16th Sep 2001, 21:24

Yozzer, an interesting point about Stingers.

As I'm sure most of you know, the CIA supplied the Mujahedeen with hundreds of Stingers during the war against the Soviet Union. Indeed the SAS trained the Muj in their use here in the UK. After the war there were over 300 unaccounted for and the USA has been doing its best to find/track/steal or buy them back ever since in an effort to make sure they don't fall into the wrong hands.

Bottom line is, they are still missing.

STANDTO

16th Sep 2001, 22:04

OK, so what are we (collective) going to do?

There is a very real chance that within the next six months, some of the authoritative members of this forum (ie the real FJ jocks) will no longer be with us following them giving their lives in the name of defeating terrorism.

What WILL win this war is the very finest intelligence, which can result in those responsible for terrorism in whatever theatre being targeted and neutralised, whether that be via internment or more permananent means. The world has to wake up to what one country's definition of terrorism might not be anothers ( IRA/Chechnya/Israel for a few examples where opinions differ)However, wherever it lies there must be global and unequivocal support for the actions taken.

Air (and maybe land and sea)travel itself will have to change for ever.Having just spent eight hours on A/T duties at a small regional airport this morning, I think we are going to have to adapt the El Al model of security for all but the very smallest of airline flights. Although international airports in Europe are prety much 'locked down', regionals remain vulnerable and present a real threat for the launch of a similar, albeit less 'biblical' atrocity.

CAP may well also become more prevalant, and pax on civil airliners may have to accept that if there is the slightest of doubt, an AMRAAM may decide.

We are in a different world following tuesday. If you had invented that scenario on the bar on monday, you would have been laughed at. See how many more you can make up and you start to realise how vulnerable the world really is.

To the dead, the injured and bereaved, my heart grieves for you and with you, but I am confident some good will fall from your grief.

[ 16 September 2001: Message edited by: STANDTO ]

Flatus Veteranus

16th Sep 2001, 23:44

The Sovs pulled out of Afghanistan during the winter of 89. Presumably the CIA stopped supplying the Mujies with Stinger about then; so can we not assume that the 300 rounds left behind are well past their sell-by date? What sort of air force has Bin Laden got that would justify the deployment of FJs? Surely, if you are going chasing terrorists around the desert, you need highly mobile SF on the ground supported by gunships, plus bags of air transport and recce. Even then it will be a logistic nightmare, without complicating the problem with unnecessary FJs.
Historically (with aplogies to those who feel that history is irrelevant)the Brits had big problems in the 19th century when they tried to occupy Afghanistan; but punitive expeditions were quite successful.

I admire the Yanks, warts and all, and spent much time explaining points of mutual misunderstanding to Rotarians and similar fora during my exchange tours. I have already expressed my sympathies in private e-mails to my many American friends. I feel the time for rhetoric is past and the questions now are whose ass are we going to kick - where, when and how.

lids

17th Sep 2001, 02:24

There is no reason why a properly planned SF type op will not be successful if proceeded by some (a lot of) accurate bombing. There is a strong opposition group to the Taliban that is willing to help (their leader has just been killed by a suicide bomber) and there are plenty of battle hardened Russian gunship crews that know the terrain (If Putin is serious about helping out) Do not forget that the Taliban is not popular in Afghanistan, could be that the locals do not want to fight the West. Bottom line is too many countries have been afraid of terrorists in the recent past, this is a rare chance to put aside Queensbury rules and take them out.

NoseGunner

17th Sep 2001, 12:40

I've been following this thread since it started and despite all the "free democratic discussion" / bickering, I think it is quite clear that we do all actually agree with each other on all the fundamentals.

Jacko has been getting a hard time, but I agree with what he is saying - this problem cannot simply be solved by attacking Afghanistan or factions within it. Killing a load of muslims may make quite a few people feel better but firstly, two wrongs don't make a right and secondly it will simply create more enemies than it gets rid of. If we want a solution to the problem rather than simple revenge, then the big picture of how the west has treated the middle east in the last 60 years needs to be addressed. I have no idea of what the solution might be and the depressing thing is that there may not even be a solution but I'm certain that going on a killing spree isn't it. I am NOT saying that some form of military action shouldn't be used - it probably should.

Remember we're all on the same side here.
I find it very difficult to write on this thread. If what I have written has infuriated anyone, particularly across the pond, then please reread carefully and slowly then count to 10 before replying.

My condolences to anyone who has suffered a loss. :(

ChristopherRobin

17th Sep 2001, 13:57

The fact of the matter is this - the freedoms and way of life that we enjoy did not just fall into our laps. They were fought for and died for by generations of our predecessors and now I believe it has fallen to us to do the same.

I understand why people say we must change our foreign policy etc, but I believe that is a red herring and amounts basically to appeasement.

If we want to continue our lives and future generations' lives in the way we know to be free and based on essentially good and honest values then I am afraid that we have to steel ourselves to the task ahead.

It may seem like an impossible mountain to climb and near impossible to win a shooting match, but where there's a will there's a way. If we don't win and eradicate this filth from the face of the earth then what is the alternative? It obviously doesn't bear thinking about.

The world prior to last tuesday has ceased to exist and so does the diplomacy and way of the world that existed with it. People who cling to it are like those who clung to the sinking Titanic. It appears to be safer than the lifeboats but it is most definitely sinking beneath the waves.

...But our way of life must be protected and as I said before it is falling to us to do so.

So let's do it.

And any of you that are going on Operation SAIF SARREEA, see you there. It sounds to me as good a place as any to kick off.

gravity victim

17th Sep 2001, 15:56

"If there is the slightest doubt, an AMRAAM may decide".

Blimey! Food for thought there. As a regular pax, I do hope that all airline pilots are now brushing up on their comms failure signals and procedures if intercepted
:eek:

Warthog 1

17th Sep 2001, 16:20

I've noticed a fair amount of bickering in the forum over the past few days. As we used to say in the fighter business, you've got the wrong sight picture. I'm a retired USAF Fighter pilot living and working in the UK--if you spend just a little bit of time thinking about the historic special relationship between the US and UK, you may just realize that we've leaned on each other a great deal. I'm not going to drone on, but in the aftermath of last Tuesday's acts of war, I thought a bit about the relationship and put together a few words--a small segment of the following was published in the Sunday Times, but I thought it useful to provide the full text for those of you who are still pulling the other guy's chain for everything from Yorktown to the Marshall plan. Just some sincere thoughts from an old Phantom/Warthog jock:

Sir

During the past week, I, like thousands of Americans living in the UK, have followed the events in New York and Washington with indescribable shock and anger. As the initial numbness wears off, I've tried to look beyond the agonizing search for survivors and the build up for what I believe to be a totally justifiable military response. In doing so, a few minor yet related issues have captured my attention. I watched with uncharacteristic emotion as
your Coldstream Guards made an unprecedented modification to the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace--as a military man, the Star Spangled Banner has always brought on that shiver--but never quite as dramatically as it did on Thursday when played by Britons in tribute to those innocents whose lives were snuffed out by an unconscionable act of war 3000 miles to the west.

I was greatly moved by the sight of Old Glory at half-mast over Clifton College, Bristol and by the three minute silence which joined people of all persuasions
in acknowledging the solemnity of the moment. I've been asked quietly by
friends and colleagues if I had been directly affected and I have seen the
British man and woman on the street sharing our grief and providing the most sincere empathy imaginable. It occurred to me that Tuesday was our Blitz and,like the British so many years ago, we will rise from the rubble and twisted metal. You see, we share with you many attributes and an indomitable spirit is one which springs to mind at this sad time.

One other thought comes to mind as I ponder the continuing saga we're living with day to day: If the target had been London, I know we would be there to help, but would we feel your pain as deeply and completely as you obviously feel ours? I'd like to think so, but I have nagging doubts. This is not because we are callous, just more introspective.

Because of this, I wanted to take these few minutes to thank you for your comforting thoughts, your unwavering support and most of all, your priceless friendship. I've never been prouder to be an American, but neither am I reluctant to admit that I love this country nearly as much as my own.

---------------------------------------------
God bless America; God bless Great Britain

Ali Barber

17th Sep 2001, 17:39

Eloquently put Warthog11. Well said.

Adastral

18th Sep 2001, 23:45

Thank you Warthog, for bringing balance back to the force.

Skwirrel

19th Sep 2001, 16:46

Ladies and gentlemen

I have been reading with interest this and several other threads and have decided to chip in my two pen'orth as my thoughts turn to alarm at what we are leading ourselves into.

First, may I offer my inadequate condolences and despairing sympathy to all who have been touched by the atrocities in New York, at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. I have been deeply affected by the depths of depravity to which humankind can descend. I have been conversely moved by the nobility of most reactions from all quarters.

However, I believe that our so called 'leaders' are off the mark in some of the things they are doing and saying. Furthermore, I am offended by some of the things that I have heard on the media from persons claiming to represent Islam, along the lines that violence against Americans is justified.

It is not.

Furthermore, incitement to criminal violence and killing is contrary to the laws of most nations. It should be an offence against international law to advocate murder of any ethnic group, nation or religion. The punishment should be immediate detention and deportation of the perpetrators to a nation state which is consistent with their avowed allegiance. For example, a Jewish person who advocates killing Palestinians should be exported to Israel and dealt with under Israeli law. A follower of Islam who considers it 'not a crime to kill Americans' should be detained in Afghanistan or Iraq. If the detaining state is inadequately stringent in punishing such crime, then there is a case for legal political sanctions from other nations (up to and including legally declared war).

It seems to me that western 'leaders' in recent years have led us into a moral vacuum that has, understandably, deeply enraged others. Under the 'leadership' of President Clinton, supported by Prime Minister Blair, and other nations' leaders, weapons have been directed at legitimate, non-legitimate and just plain wrong targets by operators in positions of relative impunity. This is not the sort of thing I was encouraged to believe in as a servant of my Queen.

These kinds of actions have established a moral asymmetry that has contributed to the divisions between races, nations and religions. That division is dangerously wide and is getting worse.

I believe that the language and actions of today's leaders should be modified. Western politicians have developed a limited lexicon of sound-bite phrases designed to anger the minimum of voters and to pump up the emotions of voters. Members of non-voting groups, e.g. foreign nations and minorities are usually contemptuously disregarded.

An example of inappropriate language is the use of the word war. Every concerted campaign of action undertaken in Western 'democracies' is described as a war. For example, we have wars on poverty, wars on drugs, wars on just about every problem our morally decrepit societies have made for ourselves and for others.

The actions of the hijackers on Tuesday 11 Sept were not acts of war. No war should include such acts of barbarity. Indeed to describe such events as war legitimises them by implying that they were part of an extended political process for which there are established internationally agreed (though sadly, invariably ignored) rules of law.

These actions were crimes. Any nation, creed or race should agree and should seek to ensure that criminals are subjected to legal procedures in the country in which the offence is committed.

The perpetrators of this wicked crime are or were not 'cowards'. They are and were fanatically committed to their missions with no regard for their own lives. If these persons had been on a legally justified military mission on behalf of a legally warring state they would have been held as heroes in their own land. Furthermore, history consistently shows that great warriors have shown respect for a courageous enemy.

These criminals were enraged to the point of insanity by perceived injustice until they held the ethical values of viruses. They were encouraged by others, openly and clearly. Osama Bin Laden's provable crime is to provoke his own followers and admirers into bestial crimes by distorting truth and omitting fact from his arguments. Similar accusations should be levelled against Sadam Hussain. Both should be subjected to criminal trial and punishment for the sake of humanity. It is for our societies to legislate such that these crimes against humanity are crimes in law.

It is not possible to wage war against terrorism. We can wage war against terrorists. However, it would be more consistent to take legal action. That is, to insist on the surrender of persons against whom there is appropriately robust evidence.

On the other hand, if another nation will not give up a known criminal, we should declare war against that nation and conduct that war under the international rules.

If our 'leaders' do not grow up and abandon their voter pleasing rhetoric, there will be increasing polarisation as moderates become more militant in all social, ethnic and religious groups. I believe that this is happening now, I fear that it can only lead to a global conflict.

Finally, a word about those who work in and control the media. That word is a very obscene one. I am sick to my stomach of watching these sensationalist parasites egging on the morally weak attention seeking politicians. I am sick of watching video clips of religious extremists calmly advocating sickening crimes against humanity. Why are you not doing much more in exposing the deep sorrow and apologies for wrongs of the vast majority of decent human beings of all nations, creeds and races? Why are you not exposing the deliberate omissions and lies of politicians and so called religious leaders? Why do you not show the looks of fear that I am seeing in people of Arab appearance in the open, surrounded by law abiding British people?

The answer is because many of you are at the opposite end of the moral spectrum from those who follow the noble, and legal, calling to arms in defence of their nations and their beliefs.

God Bless America. God Save The Queen.

[ 19 September 2001: Message edited by: Skwirrel ]

West Coast

21st Sep 2001, 10:07

As I try to make sense of the events of 9/11, I find myself sampling opinion here and abroad to help define what role the U.S. will play beyond the retribution to to start. I am struck by the polar expectations the western world has of the leadership expected of the U.S. government. I viewed an interview today with Benjamin Netanyahu, a hawk if there ever was one, espousing his beliefs, contrast that with the liberal European media (some, not all)vision of the direction expected. I believe even the chief American dissenter here, jacko called for American leadership. A wonder there isnt more disenfranchised out there. Bush said it best when he said that we cant be all things to all people. This leadership position is one that I find that many here are uncomfortable in. Many would prefer our focus to be regional rather than global.
We as a civilized people were pushed over a slippery slope, and the pieces will fall where they may in the short term, however the long term must be closely crafted. Very few of us have a base of experience to fall back on to provide a proper frame of reference to gauge future actions. What I am certain of is that no direction should be discounted. It took a war to drag The U.S. out of an isolationist policy, perhaps another one could return us to it. With trepidation, I say the next 5-10 years will bring great change.