1st International Air Show and Live Fire Demonstration/Kabul Int'l Airport [Archive]

Cyclic Hotline

19th Sep 2001, 10:59

BEagle raises a very interesting point here. A recent post here on PPRuNe, dealt precisely with the issue of Shariah law in Saudi Arabia, dealing with hijacking aircraft.

JEDDAH, 6 September — The trial of two Chechens, Leriskhan Arsaiev and Deni Magomerzaiev, who hijacked a Russian plane to Madinah earlier this year, has started in Saudi Arabia, the chairman of the Kingdom’s Supreme Judiciary Council disclosed yesterday.

Sheikh Saleh ibn Muhammad Al-Laheedan said the two defendants, who are being tried in accordance with the Shariah law, would not have defense lawyers.

“Such cases do not require a defense lawyer,” Laheedan, who is also a member of the Council of Senior Islamic Scholars, told Okaz Arabic daily.

“The hijacking occurred, the hijackers are known, and they have admitted their crime. Even assuming they had a reason (to carry out the hijacking), this in no way gave them an excuse for hijacking the plane and terrorizing its passengers,” he said. He did not say when the trial opened, but suggested a ruling was expected soon.

Sheikh Laheedan defended the Kingdom’s decision, announced Sunday by Interior Minister Prince Naif, to try the two Chechens despite a request by Russian President Vladimir Putin that they be handed over to Moscow.

There is no extradition treaty between Moscow and Riyadh.

“The crime occurred in the Kingdom, and it does not allow those who commit crimes on its territory to stand trial in another country,” Laheedan said.

A Russian hostess and a Turkish passenger died when Saudi special forces stormed the plane March 16, a day after three hijackers took over the aircraft on a flight from Istanbul to Moscow, and forced it to land in Madinah. The hijackers were demanding an end to the Russian offensive in Chechnya. The third hijacker, Soupian Arsaiev, was also killed during the operation to free the 120 passengers aboard the Vnoukovo Airlines plane.

The original post is at; http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=015315

kbf1

20th Sep 2001, 03:04

Helmut, thought you had gone off and joined a lesbian diversity farm or summink it's been so long since we last saw saw you on these hallowed pages.

For once Beages, I have to agree. Having American in (or even out)-laws I have had my fill with a foreign policy that extends no further than "we kicked ass..wuhoooo!" The US does not seem to appreciate that you cannot fight an unconventional enemy with conventional tactics. In any case, whether evidence exists that O B-L was behind this atrocity or not, tey will still lay what is left of Afghanistan to waste simply because they can. I have a olt of sympathy for the Pakistanis at the moment, they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Rattus

20th Sep 2001, 03:51

I'm with BEagle & kbf
The Septics waded into Vietnam not long after the French had the great good sense to get out, and now they propose to follow the Russians into Afghanistan. If George Dubya does initiate Operation Lynch Mob, embarking on yet another military adventure of dubious legality, he will indeed demonstrate his inability to distinguish between justice and revenge.
Rattus

[ 19 September 2001: Message edited by: Rattus ]

heloplt

20th Sep 2001, 08:13

Hey kbf....have you discussed the merits of your argument with your little lady yet? The only reason you say things like this in here is she would lay a whooping on you if you talked like that around her. I wonder how this argument would sound if it had been St. Pauls , Westminster, and the Queen that had been targets....and four BA flights out of LHR and LGW. Get real folks....your turn is coming....afterall...your government is stating publically they will participate in the military operations. Reckon you can expect a Christmas card from all of these militant groups that have sworn to join in a Jihad against anyone that attacks the Taliban? As I recall...didn't the British get their ass kicked by the Afgani's as well once before???

Samuel

20th Sep 2001, 08:24

I would have thought a somewhat macabre sense of humour is essential in any armed service; certainly in my experience. It also extends to hospitals! So I understand heloplt.I have placed the odd one or two in buckets, and have enormous respect and understanding for those that are sifting the rubble in New York.

A couple of journalists wrote a book about the service humour in the Falklands, which for both of them was their first experience of working alongside any of the services.

I recall one instance of a wounded Para being attended by two medics, and he (the Para) repeated over and over that he had "lost his leg", until one of the medics told him it wasn't lost at all, it was "over there".All three ended up laughing, much to the amazement of the journo's.

As regards the US response; the target is Hydra, and George Doubyya ain't Hercules, so he had better start being accountable for anything he does.Removing Afghanistan from the map won't achieve the aim, because the Russians have already done it.There is no infrastructure left to bomb, and a million or so troops could still mis OBL.

Alf Aworna

20th Sep 2001, 09:07

Despite the gun slinging rhetoric, heloplts last post raises a good point. The atrocities committed last week were of such a magnitude that it would be wrong for civilised nations not to do something decisive about it, this is not just an american issue. Bring the perpetrators to 'justice' if you want but remember these people quite happily killed themselves and THOUSANDS of innocent people- do you think being brought to court scares them? I think not. Decisive military action is required so that the perpetrators or those who are considering trying in the future are under no illusions that the civilised world will not stand for terrorism especially on this scale. Don't stick your heads in the sand just because it didn't happen at home, its just what these people want to happen. Now is the time to draw the line in the sand to stop future acts occurring.

pana

20th Sep 2001, 13:18

Dear Heloplt,
I almost wanted to apologize for my words at
topic "US tragedy", but, now, you absolutely convinced me that I had been right.
So, I will correct myself: you see as far as you fly high, but, you usually fly covered, I mean IFR.
You remind me of some little fellow jumping arround and screaming:kick him, kick him! while big fellows are having real fight.
All the best!! :D

heloplt

20th Sep 2001, 22:53

RollRoll...have you heard the fighters pilot prayer....

Lord give me the wings of an eagle,
The heart of a lion,
The eyes of a hawk,
and the balls of an Army helicopter pilot!

Me thinks thou doth protest too much!

Helmut Visorcover

21st Sep 2001, 00:42

heloplt, if you hadn't realised, Britain has been a target for terrorism for years. We seem to have adjusted to it. Would now not be a good time to clear up the 'Northern Ireland' issue once and for all seeings how Dubya has declared war on terrorism. I don't think we would have snivelling senators decrying human rights issues, do you? Ironically funny how things turn out.

kbf1

21st Sep 2001, 03:19

Heloplt.. I have discussed it with her, and to an extent she agrees with me. She was more surprised at the amount of sympathy she received last week, and how quickly following that anti-American sentiment has started to show. She has stopped wearing her US/UK flag pin on her jacket because she feels uneasy about wearing it now.

Rattus hit it square, there is a diffeence between justice and revenge, and the vitriol seems more revenge than anything else. St Thomas Aquinas first posed the principle of justice in war and justice of war (Jus a bello, Jus a bellum). I cannot see any justice in attacking Afghanistan whatsoever. The Taleban have asked Osama Bi-Laden to leave, and he is culturally obliged to do so. The Arabic culture is very strictly defined and adhered to. Without any hard evidence that he was responsible for the atrocity there can be no justification for laying an impoverished nation to waste. I doubt that there is any retalitory action that the US can take which would be just. If we extended the principle the Smiling One espouses, we would be laying NI to waste every time the IRA bomb London. We haven't. What makes this any different just because the scales is different? So no, Heloplt, if it had been St Pauls, Buck House, or any other London landmark that had been hit, I wouldn't be baying for blood. I didn't advocate bombing the Bogside out of existence when the IRA bombed London (take your pick of the incidents), and i don't advocate the US bombing Afghanistan just because it can. And what justification is there in dragging Pakistan into this? What beef do you have with them? or is the US just up to its F%^k you approach to diplomacy again? The same F%$£ you approach it has had to the ordinary Iraqi people (sanctions really work don't they?), the Kiyoto Accord, Palestine, Vietnam, Colmbia, Grenada, Yalta, the Balkans, or any other event where it has beaten up a country that can't fight back in recent decades. The best thing the US can do is to take stock of recent events, and work out why this has happened and rather than attack a 3rd world country that can't fight back, take a more humble approach and learn that at times discretion can be the better part of valour, and if the US must pick a fight, how about picking on someone who can fight back?

Edited to remove comments written while livid.

[ 20 September 2001: Message edited by: kbf1 ]

15/15 flex

21st Sep 2001, 07:06

Notwithstanding the atrocities that have occured in the UK and NI over the past 30 odd years, Dubya hit the nail on the head tonight in his address to Congress: This attack has killed more Americans on American soil than any other single incident in history. Can we, the civilised world, really look on and wait for justice to be done? Remember, there were - at best (worst?) estimates a couple of hundred Brits who had their lives taken away from them in this tragedy.

The answer: Ihave no idea, but opinion here is that the American populus will not stand by and wait for justice to be done in The Hague, or some such equivalent, in ten years when the whole event has become a distant memory. It cannot be coincidence that Tony B was the only world leader highlighted on CNN's coverage this evening. Get ready for some pretty ****ty times chaps.

Helmut Visorcover

21st Sep 2001, 13:41

kbf, for once I actually agree with your last post!

I'm scared, not because Terrorists have taken so much life but because Dubya has stated 'whatever weapon it takes in our arsenal'. Could he please clarify that? Deeply concerened that he has his finger firmly on the button. 'F*£k you' diplomacy if ever I've seen it.

The scale of events is attrocious, but finally Dubya has seen what terroism is about.
If only one person dies through terrorism and a million change their way of life because of it, the terrorist has succeded. Instant revenge is not the answer, as has been said before, if this action is not thought out it will just push thousands of people to side against America, Britain or any of their allies. On a scale factor, last Tuesday will pale into insignifigance. Dubya said himself 'your either with us or with the terrorists'. Whos side would you like to be on? Discuss. :eek:

Jackonicko

21st Sep 2001, 16:52

KBF makes a good point.

Without evidence retaliation is illegal and immoral, however much we may hate, despise and suspect OBL and the Taliban.

Without evidence, and without concrete action to get the moderate Islamic world on side, it will also only serve to inflame the situation.

Until these conditions are meant, 'hitting back' remains a cynical, vote-grabbing and ultimately cowardly way for Shrub (Bush Jr) to keep the redneck faction on board. Britain should have no part of it under these circumstances.

Find the evidence, make it something more and better than a bit of Moslem bashing and it (and Bush) has my full support.

Didntdoit

21st Sep 2001, 17:41

Jacko

We've crossed swords before, and I've kept my council (more or less) on this subject up to now. But...

Until these conditions are meant (sic), 'hitting back' remains a cynical, vote-grabbing and ultimately cowardly way for Shrub (Bush Jr) to keep the redneck faction on board. Britain should have no part of it under these circumstances.

Find the evidence, make it something more and better than a bit of Moslem bashing and it (and Bush) has my full support.

... is complete a*se! Let me see, you are the President of the most powerful nation in the known universe and a group of fanatics attack your country, kill thousands of people, lay waste a national icon and with an execution that could not have been accidental, attack the wobbly economic foundations of the western world. Do you:

A. Ask Mum what to do? (he probably asked Dad, but that's by the by).
B. Promise to bring the perps to account, by whatever means necessary?
C. Ask those who did it, nicely, not to do it again, coz it smarts?
D. Talk tough to secure the redneck vote?

Would you like to ask the audience?

I would suggest that the families of over 6500 people do not see the current rhetoric as a means to secure their vote. I would also suggest that if this was an excuse to go a-"muslim bashing" (MB), that the striking out blindly bit would have been done last week.

It is precisely the terms that you use, like MB, that inflame and incite those who wish to pick on people because they have different beliefs and fit a partuclar profile. GWB and TB have both made entreaties to Muslims around the world that this is not a fight against them. If you see that as a means to win the votes of the redneck faction, you can ram it, my friend. On the other hand however, certain Muslims, including some in this country who clearly enjoy the benefits of democracy and freedom of expression, have called any reaction as a Holy War on Islam. The act of war (and granted, it may not have been the first), was perpetrated last Tuesday and I would suggest that the evidence thus far leads down a road with 2 forks in it. One sign, in big, f-off writing leads to mountainous terrain in a country beginning with A, and the other, in much smaller words, suggests that the driver may not wish to discount the capital of a country beginning with I.

I cannot see how over 6,ooo people can be mercilessly slain without someone being called to account. Clearly, in a world where killers have more rights than their victims, you and yours will not accept anything but a smoking gun, and even then, it would be preferable if said smoking gun could talk and said, "yep, he did it". I have no stomach for what lies ahead in the next few years, as that's what it will be. I have no desire to see vast areas of desert lain more waste than they are now. Nor have I any stomach to see hundreds if not thousands more people (from all sides) die, because of decisions that are likely to be made soon. However, I do believe that some things are right, and others are wrong and if something smells like a fish a breathes through slits in its neck, then its a fish.

You use the word cowardly. As yet, nobody has accepted responsiblity for last Tuesday. On the other hand, however, GWB will, in all likelihood, accept responsibilty for all that is about to happen, as he will be the one who commits troops to battle and sends a number of people to the next place. I would be grateful, therefore, if you could explain exactly what 'cowardly' actually means.

You may have given yourself an out by suggesting that if all the evidence is there (yeah, right), you graciously give your full support, but once again Jacko my friend, you have, IMHO, talked b*llox on this subject.

And you can quote me on that.

(where is the spellchucker on this thing)

[ 22 September 2001: Message edited by: Didntdoit ]

Lucifer

21st Sep 2001, 18:39

E. Carefully think out your policy to make sure that what action you take against those accused of such crimes has the backing of solid evidence, is a precise military target and not increasing suffering, and will not pull apart the world order, thus carrying out positive action which achieves long-term results and achieves more than short-term revenge.

Which do YOU think is the correct answer?

Didntdoit

21st Sep 2001, 20:05

Luce,

Since you ask, and for what it's worth, I think the answer is 'B', first and foremost, and then 'E'. You forgot the other option:

F. Do nothing.

IMHO, 'B' and 'E' are both being played out now.

Low and Slow

21st Sep 2001, 21:12

Re: Assertions about laws, morals, and ethics as concerns the US response:

US law allows for action to be taken against OBL, as does the UN Charter. The US just has to claim to be acting in self-defence.

I suspect, however that OBL and his type see US Law as morally bankrupt and irrelevant.

Personally I've got no problem with hunting down anyone who supports the eradication of every Jew in Palestine, or those who seek to support or justify it.

Dragonspet

21st Sep 2001, 21:54

Heloplt,
I hope you didn’t mind I thought that was so funny that I copied it and put it on the bulletin board in the break room. I have $200.00 accumulated so far, please advise where to send it. Although the posting was put out on humor this is a grave situation. One that will affect all countries of the world. I am certain that before any military insertions take place they will have congressional approval; one man is not making these decisions, no matter how powerful he may be.
Reading through these postings the general consensus does not reflect the support that your PM showed to the president’s address last night. It appeared to me that the UK was behind this approach all the way. After all being recognized as the US’s largest friend. As a country that suffered the most casualties next to the US in the WTC bombing; I would think that some of the people in the UK would share the same sentiments of revenge as many Americans. This is not just a US affair it, already having the UN’s approval among many other countries already choosing sides that have been drawn in the sand.
I do respect anyone’s individual right to believe what he or she chooses concerning the topic of war, for religious reasons or just passive by nature. But actions must be taken and the longer this is drawn out the more difficult and confused the issue will get. Do not believe for a moment that if Bin Laudin surrenders himself to the appropriate authorities that this matter is resolve the entire terrorist organizations are the target not just one individual. It will be interesting to see what will take place in regards to the IRA. I have not seen their names in any newspapers lately, but I feel they are “peas in a pod” all terrorist are the same regardless of their causes or objectives. They prey on the innocent with no remorse.
If we like it or not we are in this together I am sure that the forces that the UK have deployed to the “Training “ exercise are strategically place where they are for a reason. We all know that “Training” exercises are most of the time implemented as a show of force. The US does it China does it, and I feel the UK is doing it right now.This matter will not be resolved quickly, and God bless all that are drawn into this affair, my prayers are with you all.

P.S. I was only kidding about the fund raising, I do not want to offend anyone.

[ 21 September 2001: Message edited by: Dragonspet ]

Small Cheese

21st Sep 2001, 23:06

"I cannot see how over 6,ooo people can be mercilessly slain without someone being called to account."

Quite right. But....

(bit off topic) are the 10,000 plus families of people killed EVERY YEAR in the US by handguns waiting for Bush's 'War on Firearms' to begin? I think not. Aren't we all glad to live in the 'civilised' world!

Like civilisation, terrorism comes in many forms. Sadly the victims rarely get the chance to distinguish.

Flatus Veteranus

21st Sep 2001, 23:17

OBL has declared Jihad on the West, so why should the West insist on due legal process? Why saddle ourselves with the need for unrealistically sringent standards of proof? If Intelligence points to OBL as the most likely perpetrator, lets get on with it and take him and his minions out. Similarly, the police (according to the BBC documentary) know who were the Omagh bombers, but do not have the evidence to make a charge stand up in court. Just remove them from the scene. I have no problem with a "shoot to kill" policy in this sort of situation . The only moral requirement is precision - the need to avoid, so far as possible, "collateral damage". Just shifting the landscape around in Afghanistan with masses of 1,000 kg iron bombs would be stupid, as well as immoral. The Sovs tried that back in the 80s with their BADGERS and got nowhere. Our first requirement is accurate real-time intelligence from people on the ground.

[ 21 September 2001: Message edited by: Flatus Veteranus ]

DESPERADO

22nd Sep 2001, 11:08

Didntdoit,
Agree with you wholeheartedly, you put into words, fairly eloquently, exactly what I have been thinking and I salute you for it.

To the Americans reading this post, I for one am with you 100%. Like you said, several hundred of my countrymen were killed in this attack, I would be remiss in my duties as a member of HM armed forces if I didn't do something to defend my people. This is not going to stop until we get down and dirty with these b@ast@rds.
Even if the US were to withdraw its support from Israel, this would achieve nothing. Does anybody out there believe that we would hear no more? I have already argued with Jacko about what would happen to Israel without US support. I think that the nations surrounding Israel would see that as a green light and you could expect Yom Kippur mk 2.
Think that is far fetched? then why is it that Syria (1 example) supports financially, and with facilities as well as sanctuary, more than 10 different terrorist groups (including Hamas) that are sworn to destroy Israel and the Jewish race, not very peaceful is it? This is about much more than Israel and the palestinians, this is about our way of life and its deluding yourself to think otherwise. This is not going to stop, and yes, London could be the next target. My home town and family could be victims of the terrorists collateral damage if passengers decided to retake the plane as they did with the fourth aircraft. Think thats far fetched? Remind yourself where you were last Tuesday when you heard the news. We have a duty to protect ourselves and our people (thats what I signed up for anyway). This is a war, and bad things happen. I don't think that Jacko would be happy unless we proved that OBL had bought the plane tickets himself in the Peterborough Thomas Cook, with his L'Qaeda visa card.
I have to admit I find myself incresingly perplexed and upset by the attitude of some of my UK colleagues on this forum. This happened to us as well, not just the US. I watched it happen, the magnitude and the barbarity of it still make me feel ill. How can you sit there and piously state that "the yanks were asking for it a little bit". "However as it was so beastly we will fight with you but only if you have the name and address of the naughty fellow that did it". "Lets all remember though, that he was driven to do it by the evil Zionist conspiracy who are intent on taking over the world with burger bars"
This will happen again, next time it could be your home town. I for one am prepared to fight very hard to stop that. If you aren't interested then b"ggr off to BA. Oh, thats right you can't coz they are about to go bust because of the Zionist conspiracy.

Long boring rant over, soz, got a bit cross.

[ 22 September 2001: Message edited by: DESPERADO ]

heloplt

22nd Sep 2001, 18:19

Well said Desparado! These other guys who either say these things to stir the pot or at worst actually believe what they say will one day come to understand why wars need to be fought.
Those of us who serve in the defense of our fellow citizens understand the sacrifices that service requires. They all have their freedom , paid for by others ,but unfortunately do not understand why those of us who risk our lifes defending them appreciate that very freedom all the more.

I just wonder what it would take for some of these guys to stand up and make sacrifices for others? Are these the kind of men that would allow a burglar to enter their homes at night, commit unspeakable acts of violence against their family, and merely step to the telephone and call the police? I wonder what kind of attack it will take to get these guys to stand up for their nation? It actually, really, does worry me that they would sit there in the passenger seat and be a witness to their own death sentence being proclaimed by terrorists and go to their end looking for someone else to come to their aid. They are quick to words, slow to action, and make mock of reality when it might require sacrifices by them in support of others.

There is no way I find any mitigation that reduces the sheer evilness of what has been done to well over six thousand people, men, women, children, and infants. They wish to throw the IRA and Northern Island in the argument for what reason I do not understand. Does it matter which terrorist group kills innocent people? They want proof as if we were interested in going to court and hold a trial. There shall be not trial in this unless the accused acknowlege the concept of law,order, justice and surrender to those ideals. They have utter contempt for those ideals...that is why they murder innocent unarmed people.

If kbf and Jacko and that group had loved ones in one of the airplanes or in the Towers...wonder what they would be saying today? Is that what it would take to jog them into an understanding of what this is about? I wonder if the reason the missus doesn't wear her American flag pin is her idea or as a result of the psyops campaign being waged by her hubby?

kbf1

23rd Sep 2001, 03:22

I have written 3 responses to your post Heloplt, and scrapped them because at this time I do not want to cause personal offence. I should say now that many of my family have served in the Royal Navy and the British Army, and I have lost a friend to terrorist activity in NI, so yes, I know first hand in excruciating detail what it is like to lose someone close in such circumstances.

My wife is not subject to my "psyops" as you put it. She has a mind and opinions of her own, and we often disagree. We have different reasons for reaching a similar conclusion about what response is or is not appropriate, and I would not claim to agree with everything she believes. However, we are agreed that an attack for an attack's sake is not the way forward, but for very different reasons.

As for making sacrifices for others, believe me I have made many. I do not have to justify my commission in any way as i signed on the dotted line and serve at the pleasure of Her Majesty. That is not to say I would agree with everything that I have been asked to do, but I have done it non-the-less. I am prepared to stand and be counted, however I advocate reason and restraint in responding to last week's atrocity, I am not prepared to be hawkish at this time. I am dissapointed that Despoerado feels the way he does, but that is a matter for him and he is entitled to his views as I am to mine.

I do find it disapointing that you should think that I, a British serviceman, should wish to pass the burden of responsibility of defending society onto others, especially as it is our forces that bear the brunt of peacekeeping operations in the Balkans which America has shyed away from, as well as Northern Ireland which has not seen a single US serviceman in a UN or other helmet patrolling the streets. I wonder how many US servicemen and women have patrolled the streets of their own nation while having petrol bombs and any other home made explosive thrown at them? I wonder how many other US servicemen have come under attack from both sides of a religious devide in their own country. My point with respect is this Heloplt, we the British have had 30 years to become accustomed to terrorist acts on our home soil and we have come to appreciate that an all out attack does nothing to resolve the situation. If anything it produces martyrs and steels resolve, rather like last week's attack has done on the people of NY. You have to be more intelligent in your response to the situation than just retaliating with military power. You will just create martyrs.

What I think the US fails to understand is that Arabic culture is based on folk law. OBL fulfils a prophetic role almost and a folk law has built up around him. He inspires young moslems who feel disenfranchised with the west having deserted them and opressing them after using them to fight their own ideological war with Russia in Afghanistan. They have turned their tribal and fudal society onto the next enemy to be defeated. With the lack of a real, identifiable target country, that fudality has been focussed too on an ideology. That ideology is the purity of Islam and it's place in Arabic society. The disenfranchised moslem sees the west as its opressor, especially in the middle east. Both America and Britain carved out a piece of Palestine and handed it over to the Jews in 1948 to create the state of Israel and Israel has terrorised moslems living in the West Bank ever since. We have starved innocent Iraqis to death in order to remove a leader we dislike from power by usineg sanctions, and we have done this unsuccessfully. So-called Chrisitans have ethnically cleansed moslems from Bosnia-Hertzogovina and all of it with political backing from the west in one form or another.

If the US fails to acknowledge that the Arab world has different values to the West, and if it tries to impose western values on it, then it is doomed to more retaliatory strikes.

Dubya's choice of words has also been vitriolically inappropriate. To describe the "war on terrorism" as a Crusade was at best unwise. It invokes a Christian Vs Moslem ethic, and as many moslems were appalled by last weeks events as Christians. The choice of Infinate Justice as the code name for the operation is as offensive to Arabs as it is ironic to me, as the proposed reaction is far from just.

I would be happier to support any action if the response were measured. If it fulfilled Aquinas' criteria for Jus a Bello, or jusitce of war, I would not have my reservations. Yes, America was attacked. Depending on your point of view, it could be argued that the US provoked this attack. I do not subscribe to that view for a moment. If it were proved beyond reasonable doubt that OBL was behind the atrocity, if action was proportionate, if action was defined, if it had a measured purpose and stated aim, if it did not expose innocent people to danger of collateral damage, if it was lawful in international terms, if it was limited in terms of limits of exploitation, then I would have fewer objections. Bush is talking about a sustained and limitless attack against an undefined target. His words indicate a desire for a wide remit without limits, and that worries me. I do not think that the correct approach is a carpet bombing of Afghanistan which achieves nothing but needless loss of life. Two wrongs do not make a right, no matter how angry the US people may be, or how violated they feel.

If we are to talk about evil, we need to understand what that entails. We are gifted with free will. We can choose to do what we wish with that free will. We may choose to enhance life, and give life, or take it in varying degrees of atrocity. We cannot condemn the taking of innocent life as evil, and the take innocent life in return and say that that is good simply because we are replying to what we percieve as evil. If it can be guaranteed that we will not target innocent people, which Bush has so far not done, then we must guard against action. We must, therefore, measure our response.

The we have to think about the implications of any action. If we drag Pakistan into a civil war with the damned if you do, damned if you don't diplomacy that Bush has used against them, and if the government falls to extremists we hand nuclear weapons to the Taliban, expose Kashmir to danger and are likely to spark a war between Pakistan and India, which is equally unstable. As it is agitators from the JUI Islamic Party are subsidising the purchase of rifles to fight the "infidels". In London yesterday militants moslems were baying for blood. one commented to a reported that moslems loved death as much as we loved life and wants to send his 2 daughters to a military training camp to fight the Americans. There are times when because of the implications to others we have no choice but to accept restraint. If the US attacks Afghanistan then the rest of the world will suffer in greater numbers than it did with the losees in the WTC. As a Briton I seek justice for the 500 or so British lives lost, not purely vengence. Finally we must ask the question, what would attacks solve? I would argue not much.

Finally, Blair. If he is so committed to waging war on terrorism, then why has he let bombers, snipers, and murderers out of prison and into the government of NI? I cannot take his resolve seriously when he panders to terrorists at home and talks tough to terrorists thousands of miles away. Perhaps he should concentrate his efforts at getting our own problems sorted out first and foremost.

Jackonicko

23rd Sep 2001, 03:29

DIDN'T:

Lucifer gives an excellent answer to the question (E. Carefully think out your policy to make sure that what action you take against those accused of such crimes has the backing of solid evidence, is a precise military target and not increasing suffering, and will not pull apart the world order, thus carrying out positive action which achieves long-term results and achieves more than short-term revenge.), but if he was too articulate for you then the answer is G:

Find the right people and punish them hard, while maintaining your morally unassailable position by seeking to minimise innocent casualties and by putting right some of the underlying causes.

If we are going to set ourselves up as judge, jury and executioner then we must at least follow due process. Regardless of the awful scale of this horrifying and tragic outrage, we must not be blinded to what is right. (You asked BTW for a definition of cowardly - anything which is not morally courageous. Thus the terrorists on 11 September were the worst kind of cowards, while any politician who follows the line of least resistance and maximum popularity, and shies away from what may be right but unpopular, is also displaying a lesser form of cowardice.)

Some of you may have been happy to murder whoever you thought were the guilty men of Omagh, and some of you may be happy with the thought of slaughtering any of those who don't agree with you 100% and who perhaps even supported the aims (but not the methods) of those responsible for 11 September. I can understand anyone being angry at the sight of Pakistanis buring Bush in effigy, or Palestinians holding up V signs. But that doesn't make them legitimate targets. Fortunately we live in a civilised society where justice must be seen to be done, not merely revenge.

There are some fairly far-fetched and facile comparisons and illustrations being used, and some fairly offensive assumptions about what kind of people those of us are who feel uncomfortable about the no-brain gung-ho "let's bomb Afghanistan into the Stone Age" cliches and neanderthal rhetoric being used here, too. But if it'll please the simple minded, if I was burgled, and my wife and family brutalised, then I hope I'd wait for the law to take its course - or at the very least, I'd make sure I beat the crap out of the right person, and not just pick on someone against whom I had a long-standing dislike. That would just make me a thug, a vigilante and a criminal.

This isn't some half-baked Hollywood movie, and making light of the situation (as the title of this thread does) is unhelpful. Calling these people perps is another indication that immature and inappropriate TV-show metaphors may be being applied. Innocent lives must not be shed in the search to achieve justice for the innocent lives already lost. America sets itself up as the leader of the free world and the shining example of enlightened democracy. Kneejerk revenge is not appropriate from such a great nation, whereas legal retaliation may be. Without following due process, we diminish ourselves and play into the hands of those who seek to destroy what we stand for.

I fully support effective action against the guilty, but like many Brits, I feel uneasy when our PM writes a blank cheque of support to the USA when that nation's language is so (understandably) intemperate, and when justice and retaliation appear to have been put behind the desire for pure unadulterated revenge. This is not Kuwait in 1990, where there was a 'smoking gun', and when I fully supported all actions that were taken (and indeed condemned them for perhaps not going far enough). I am not some bleeding heart liberal who thinks that military action is always wrong (or even regrettable), I just believe in international law.

PS: Desperado. I'll argue with you when your geopolitical outlook progresses beyond about 1975, OK? This isn't 1967, and Israel's neighbours aren't bent on its destruction, 'kay???

DESPERADO

23rd Sep 2001, 04:42

Jacko,
You appear to feel that if someone disagrees with you then the best solution is to be at best patronising, and at worst pompous and insulting. I am not a teenager, and I can read. I am well aware of what has been going on in the middle east since 1975, indeed I have visited the region a number of times both on and off duty, and spoken to people there from all walks of life and religions (have you?). I repeat my question, why is it that Syria (with it's oh so benevolent dictatorship) supports, trains and harbours more than 10 terrorist groups (including Hamas, one of the groups responsible for suicide bombings) that seek the destruction of Israel, if it were so keen to see Israel's continued existence. Syria is not the only nation in the region with similar issues. You say that my views are based on the issues of 25 years ago, well it was around that time that the US became heavily involved in the region and sponsored the peace process. This was coincidently a time when Egypt started to receive significant western financial, and military aid. Now I am not suggesting that Egypt would return to her ways pre peace, but the withdrawl of US support for Israel is likely to make the threat to Israel from its neighbours and not just the terrorists, much greater. Jacko, these are just my opinions, based on some reading and some real experiences. Perhaps you would come down off your much higher intellectual dais and explain to a poor old comprehensive educated stick monkey where I have got it all wrong, you are obviously much cleverer than I am. By the way I know I harp on about Syria, they are just the best example, not the only one.
KBF,
See where you are coming from. But, I just feel that this was a little bit more than 'just' (my word) a terrorist atrocity. I don't feel the need or the urge to look at this from a few paces back as you do. I believe that we are involved up to our neck and should not shirk from that. But I agree that TB should not be handing over a blank cheque, I guess we just disagree on how much should be on it.
As far as Iraq is concerned, we haven't been responsible for starving the children and people of Iraq. Saddam has it within his means to purchase food and medicine for oil, and always has done, he has just chosen not to because he cares more about the propaganda value than his people.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on NI, we have given in to terrorists, let them out of prison (thereby legitimising their claim that their crimes were political, not criminal), even put them in positions of power, to no avail. I am with TB in his fight against terrorism, but I haven't heard anything from him about our own problem.

[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: DESPERADO ]

Roc

23rd Sep 2001, 09:51

Jacko, Jbf1,

You speak of not retaliating until enough evidence against OBL is found, Your nervous about US rage turning Kabul into a parking lot, and You both seem very knowledgable concerning the ramifications of poorly executed actions on the part of the US. First, OBL has been fingered for numerous other terrorist acts, and for these alone he needs to be eliminated. A trial would only add to the media circus and further attempts at terror. You both seem to possess the weak-spined attitude of Chamberlain with Hitler. This attack was physically aimed at the US, but all of the Western world is suffering. These people will not negociate in peace, and I believe that even if Israel was eliminated off the face of the earth, these same warring factions would exist. We all know who these guys are, where they are, and who's behind them. Hell, at every intel brief I've recieved in the past 5 years OBL is the star attraction. The difference now is that we are not going to be good "neighbors" and respect tenants of international law, If a country will not turn these criminals over, then we will take them ourselves. If this attitude offends your higher moral values I'm sorry. Also I feel that the IRA terrorists in NI will be a target of this campaign in some fashion. And finally, while You all correctly state that you have endured terrorism for 30 years etc etc, the ferocity of this attack goes beyond past acts, these Assho@#!s have managed to screw up the world economy and airlines all over the world are feeling the impact. Imagine if Buckingham Palace, and Westminster Abbey, or the Eiful tower were the targets. Would you still be asking for such a high level of evidence? By the way, I thank God Bush is the President, with Colin Powell, Cheney, and Rumsfeld on his staff I'm sure they are carefully considering all options and avenues of responce, even without the expert advice of you and Jackonico.

kbf1

23rd Sep 2001, 16:10

Desperado:
I agree, this was not "Just" a terrorist act, we should not "just" respond as if it were. I think Jacko summed it up in his itallicised quotes on what is, and is not, a measured response.

Understand that I do not think we should do nothing. We are as aggrieved as the US because we lost more British lives in one single act of terrorism on the WTC than in any one single act perpetrated by the IRA. It should be a high priority to bring those responsible to justice. However, I do not feel the approach that the US is taking is justified. I think that is where we differ. I would be interested to know why you think I am looking at this from a few paces back as I don't think I am? I am with you on the idea we should be involved, I just think we should use our oun judgement in terms of defining what we as a nation will and will not support, and not get caught up in the very American trait of looking to avenge first, think about the consequences to everyone else second. I doubt very much if the US as a nation would be so quick to defent the UK in the terms it has used thus far had the terrorists flown into Canary Warf and the Nat West tower and the loss of American life was negligable. In fact I am confident we would have had a message of condolance and that would be it. As far as the US would be concerned the party line would be "sorry to hear Limeys, tough break and all, but on yuor own with that one". Individually I suspect Americans would be disgusted and appalled, but they would not advocate a single US serviceman coming home in a body bag for our sake, but they are quite willing to see British servicemen die on their behalf. It is called the Vietnam factor in the US. So this being the case, why shouldn't we dictate our own terms for getting involved in any response? If we are going to act why not set our own terms with the Americans? Why shouldn't we say that we will get involved, but only when the criteria of the response being measured, just, and assured are met, and not before. Why should we not say we will not get involved if the US is intent on a retaliatory duck shoot of innocent civilians, or sending a 3rd world country back to the stone age just to flex it's military muscles? I believe we should be more civilised than that. I have seen no convincing argument or statement from Bush to indicate to me that he is intent on anything other than taking an eye for an eye, any eye, innocent or guilty, just because he feels he can. I also feel that TB is writing a blank cheque we may not be able to cash. I do not want to see British Forces bogged down in Afghanistan long after the US has lost the stomach for the fight. Neither do I want to see us committed to sending troops to prop up struggling regimes in India and Pakistan for years to come because the US wrecklessly chooses to ignore the implications of attacking Afghanistan. We just cannot afford in human or economic terms what that entails. Again the US will not be prepared to spend dollar 1 on what it will pass ff as our colonial inheritance having spent billions on a war it cannot win. So we again will be faced with the brunt of the clean up operation repairing the damage wrought by flawed US foreign policy as we have been doing for years in the Balkans. Having done me the courtesy of hearing my argument, I look forward to hearing yours.

Roc:
The first 6 lines of your response gave me hope of a reasoned argument. I should say to you that things deteriorated from there, and you reinforced your own stereotype. I could bang the table and say "I won't have it sir!" and demand you retract your accusations of cowardice, but I suspect I would be wasting my time. I will at least try and give you the benefit of the doubt as I see you are geographically close to the events of the past weeks and I will assume you are rightly angry and that it is your anger which speaks louder than your true intent.

I do not advocate, and never have, trying to have a diplomatic answer when the Taliban have no intention of acknowledging that the attack on the WTC was in any way wrong. Their request to OBL to leave the country was an act of self preservation rather than an act of acknowledgement. OBL will leave Afghanistan, of that I am confident because it is culturally unacceptable for him now to stay. Arabic culture is by far stronger than western culture in terms of society's norms and values. I also agree that if OBL were brought to trial it would degenerate into a media circus, and the US would be the star attraction in all 3 rings! (let us think of the OJ trial in this respect). You would also be opening yourself to backlashes against moslem communities at home and every crazy in the US would be coming out of the woodwork, especially the right wing fundamentalist Christians, the KKK, and your own firebrand extreminsts. That leaves us with a military response, which may or may not be appropriate depending on the limits imposed on it, and here lies the crux of my argument. I am not arguing that we should do nothing, what I am arguing for is a greater analysis of the circumstances and the wider implications of acting in such a fashion. We cannot adopt a "kick ass now, ask questions later" model of military planning because we are open to failure if we do. We also then become the terrorists we seek to destroy. Imagine you were an Afghan family living in terror of the next wave of US led bombing against your village. Think about what that would make the US where it to bomb any town or collection of buildings simply because it might just contain a terrorist or two and imagine the outrage that would be felt in the moslem/Arabic world if the justification used was "better 100 innocents die than a single terrorist escapes". Add to that the vitriol from Bush that leads us to the conclusion that Afghans should die because Americans have died and we have a recipe for disaster. Note that Bush has already set himself up as God in Islamic terms by promising "Infinate Justice" through the proposed code name of the operation, Infinate Justice being something only God himself can bring in terms of the Koran. I question the notion that anyone should be pleased that Powell, Cheney, et al are advising Bush when he comes out with comments such as this and calling his actions a "Crusade", another deeply offensive comment to moslems in the US. It just evidences my point that he is, in fact, badly advised.

As for your comments about a attack on Britain, I think we have to look at our cultural differences. I can say from personal and first hand experience that they are many, and vast. We as Britons are more reserved. We do not have the "frontier sprit". We do not have a constitution that binds our thoughts into a single paradigm. We do not have the ideological battles you face on gun control and religion. We do not therefore need to concern ourselves as a nation on what role the right to bear arms has on society. These battles have built up in the minds of many Americans a need to justify the need to defend individual state freedom against a federal oppressor with violence and the taking of life. Neither have we built a money meritocratic society that sees the right to defend property with violence as sacred. This is what makes us, as Britons, less hawkish. It is not in our culture or psyche to want to avenge every act with violence. It is not in our culture to believe that we are the greatest country on Earth and that everyone else would naturally desire to be British if given the choice. We do not pledge allegiance to the Union Flag (though I sometimes wish we did!). We do not hold the office of Prime Minister as sacrosanct. We criticise and ask questions of our leaders. We are cynical and have to be convinced of the merits of a course of action. We are often quiet and will take hard knocks on the chin. We try and act responsibly, and most importantly, we are not isolationist in our approach to world affairs. But understand that we are courageous. We withstood the blitz and everything that the Germans could throw at us for years before the US got involved with WW2. You would have happily left us to it had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, and you may wish to consider this when attacking Chamberlain or British Diplomacy. We have endured 30 years of domestic violence from the IRA. We have suffered attack after attack on our shores but have stood resolute since 1066, our shores never being breached. When you understand that we are not like you Americans you will understand why Jacko, Helmut, Rattus, Beagle and I do advocate think first, then act as the appropriate course of action.

[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: kbf1 ]

Cardinal Puff

23rd Sep 2001, 18:24

kbf1

Well said, Sir. Never been much of a fan of the Americans and their policies or the Brits but your measured and eloquent response puts me firmly on your team. Couldn't agree with you more. A knee jerk reaction such as carpet bombing a defenceless Third World country will only prove that the bully hits before he thinks whereas a controlled strike at the CORRECT target will prove to the perpetrators of this atrocity that their opponents are not the dummies they seem. A negotiated handover of the guilty parties for trial in a neutral country would be an even bigger PR coup.

Roc

23rd Sep 2001, 19:12

Kbf1,

You are much more eloquent than I, however, I beleive your views of US policy are biased. Show me the knee-jerk reaction? Its been 10 days, and no military action yet. Do you ever think alot of the build-up is to put extreme pressure on certain groups to turn these people over. Do you feel you are so much better equipped to handle this situation than a person like Colin Powell or Dick Cheney? Where are all these other bumbling "cowboy" responses the US has made in the past? I seem to remember a lengthy build-up of forces and much negociation prior to beginning hostilites in the Gulf. And as far as your analysis of our seemingly shameful lack of timely participation in helping England during WWII, explain to me why should America have jumped into yet ANOTHER BLOODY WAR started by Europeans yet again. Remember it was 1940, not 2001, Americans didn't really have the global presence and power that it does today. And while I respect England and expect to be fighting with your forces soon, lets not climb up on a lofty peak and preach the higher morals, patience, and wisdom of English foreign policy over the last few centuries. Many of todays problems stem from policies inflicted on the world from your side. Hell wasn't Vietnam a French colony? You have the luxury of sitting back and thinking about what you would do here, mainly because you don't have the military capability to strike quick and decisivly anyway. I forgot, you do have 2 C-17's. I do not intend to disrespect the British, just the "I so much more sophisticated and worldly than you" attitudes. I have faith in our leaders, they are not cowboys or extremists.

DC Meatloaf

23rd Sep 2001, 22:09

Since September 11th, I've been reading posts on this site suggesting that the attacks, while horrific, are certainly no justification for the firestorm we Americans are sure to unleash. It's a shame that 6500 innocents (from over 60 different countries) were killed in this attack, the posts seem to suggest, but perhaps America ought to look at the root causes -- its support of Israel, its arrogance -- before sending over the first strike.

Well, it’s been nearly two weeks and Afghanistan has not yet been turned to glass. We've not yet rounded up everyone with a copy of the Koran, nor have we urged the Israelis to finish off the PLO. We've not yet even lobbed cruise missiles indiscriminately at anyone.

And yet, a number of posters here (and on other threads) seem to suggest that we will.

Well, this American is proud of the restraint and clear thinking our leaders have demonstrated thus far. I think the President’s address to Congress spelled out clearly our approach in the coming months and years. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are the primary targets of our first assault on terror, and so is a Taliban government that continues to harbor and aid them. Our dispute isn’t with the people of Afghanistan – we are, as the President pointed out, the largest source of humanitarian aid to the Afghans – just with a government that continues to allow “safe harbor” to those who have perpetrated a number of particularly devastating terrorist attacks around the globe, including, apparently, this latest attack. And after that?

“Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

I would hope that the world would largely stand by us in this effort. I know I’ve been moved by the response from our allies – especially Great Britain – so far. I only pray that, posts on this board notwithstanding, this climate of unity persists. But rest assured, we’re prepared to go it alone if it doesn’t.

Gary Astazu

23rd Sep 2001, 22:33

DC Meatloaf, I am with you all the way! What ever the response it will be entirely appropriate! I just hope that it doesn't miss! :mad: As for Mr Bliar, Just how do you sleep at night?

[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: Gary Astazu ]

Jackonicko

23rd Sep 2001, 23:51

I believe that Britain's experience of terrorism does give it some grounds to be critical of the present US approach to what is NOT A NEW PROBLEM.

The instinctive general reaction to Irish terrorism over here has usually been to acknowledge some historical responsibility for the hostility which lies behind support for the terrorists, even if that historic guilt (Cromwell, unfair treatment of the once-minority Catholic population in the north) did not justify the terror unleashed upon us. But we do have the humility and realism to acknowledge that we may occasionally have done the wrong thing. And while making a robust military response against our enemies we have followed a dual track approach, trying to cut support from under the terrorists by enfranchising and aiding the nationalist community and by interacting with their legitimate representatives. We never went and carpet-bombed the Irish Republic (where many active terrorists 'hung out') nor the USA, despite its tendedncy to provide money, support and sustenance. And while we encouraged friendly nations to condemn IRA terrorism, we did not insist that they should validate our every policy on Ireland without question or comment, recognising that it was possible to be both against terrorism and at the same time critical of us. We may not have got it right, but we did at least try to do the right thing. I applaud Bush's patience so far, and his courage in resisting red-neck demands for immediate and indiscriminate retaliation. My worry is that the response now being prepared will fall short of what we would expect from the leader of the free world, and the world's avowed leader of democracy and freedom.

Interesting that the Gulf Co-operation Council and the EU's foreign ministers have all reacted similarly, with unlimited sympathy for the US and unreserved condemnation of the 'perps', but expressing a measure of concern over the proposed reaction.....

PS Desperado. So sorry you felt patronised. Yes, have visited the ME, btw, and yes, have talked to many Arabs (christian and moslem) and Jews. (Oh, and yes, also studied modern history to degree level and beyond, specialising in the history of the Middle East since 1900). But what do I know, liberal git that I am, crammed with book learning and taught by bearded lefties. And with regard to Syria, even Assad Sr softened his stance on Israel before he died, and his son has taken the process further. (Oh, and he'd stopped flying MiG-21s by the time he was president, too, BTW, in case that's news......)

Paddington*

24th Sep 2001, 02:13

Heloplt:- 'I mourn those lost,and those that are going to be lost fighting this war but that does not mean I cannot find a way to brighten what would otherwise be a very dark.' Well said.

TM, where's your evidence for this one then? 'Whilst not very PC the simple fact is that females run on Emotion and males run on Logic. The 2 are not compatable.'

Good luck to all the guys 'n girls heading out to the Middle East.

[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: Paddington* ]

harrier

24th Sep 2001, 02:56

Who is a terrorist?

We should be a little careful here chaps, because from our perspective here in Southern Africa (ex RAF), just about every terrorist organisation has had or still has offices in London. We know beyond any doubt that the British people aided and funded these organisations. It is said (and this by my own British friends) that the British Government may have actively supported and even covertly funded some of them.

Nelson Mandela, is a self confessed freedom fighter and was convicted in an open court of acts of terror for which he was sentanced life imprisionment. The organisation of which he was leader, the ANC, has in the recent past, actively supported and in turn been supported by the Provisional IRA. This man has subsequently been knighted by Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. We can’t help wonder what her subjects in the North of Ireland think about that. Is there some sort of message hidden here, because if so, it's bloody well hidden.

Had he been Catholic I'm certain the Pope would have canonized him by now. St. Nelson, lovely ring to it don't you think?

British politicians even named the streets and suburbs of their towns after a prominent woman terrorist, Winnie Mandela. Everybody knows, with the glaring exception of the South African courts, that it was she who ordered the murder of a young boy, Stompie. That was one of her less extreme acts of terror. Her most publicised (caught in the full glare of the international TV cameras) was her claim that they (the ANC) still had the 'necklace'. Now this is a real weapon of terror, as all it entails is hanging a tyre around some unfortunates persons head, filling it with petrol and setting it alight. Nice ha? And there are streets and suburbs in Britain named after this woman. I wonder if there are any named after her in Ulster? If there are they were probably named by Nationalists. What next chaps? make her a Dame? ;-)) ;-))

What sort of message is this sending out. Could all this not be construed as 'support of terrorism'? Let's hope the that the Yanks don't think so. As an ex RAF erk I hate to say this, but if the Yanks were to decide that we were supporters of terrorists organizations we would not stand much chance. I know that our aircrew would fight to the finish in defence of our country.

The awful truth which must be faced, is that it is not only the politicians but also many right thinking people, right up to and including the heads of state of many western countries, who actively connive with terrorists and their supporters when it suits them to. They also reward their leaders with the highest honours that their states can bestow, if it can be seen to be the popular thing to do. Ah la Nelson Mandela. The fact that some of the people so honoured have been convicted of acts of terrorism in which many innocent people died, seems to be conveniently forgotten, as is the fact that some of these organisations have been aided by and in turn given aid to the IRA. This I'm told is 'real politik'.

If you want to know how many of us from this side of the world fought for the feedom of the United Kingdom, please ask, because as an ex RAF erk I’m expected to name the top RAF 20 scorers who fought for that freedom (you will be very surprised at their nationalities if you look into it).

:)

[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: harrier ]

[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: harrier ]

kbf1

24th Sep 2001, 04:16

Roc:

Waiting 10 days is not necessarily restraint. Bush could wait 10 years before laying waste to Afghanistan and it could still be a knee-jerk reaction (note I say could ). Tolstoy did say that the 2 greatest weapons at any general's disposal are time and patience.

In sofar as Bush has yet to define the limit of his intentions he is showing a lack of restraint. His stated war on global terrorism is by definition, limitless. What will he do when it comes to the IRA or the UVF and UFF? Will he bomb NI? Will he take action against the so-called Irish-Americans who rattle the collecting tins for the IRA in the bars and street corners of Boston? They too, after all, support terrorism and the taking of life for a political ideology by those who seek to bring down a democratic government elected by due process. Will he take on extremeists in his own back yard? I would admire him for doing this because it would be a sure fire vote loser, but if he does it non-the-less then he would demonstrate a courage not seen for decades in domestic politics. Will he remove guns from the street? exactly where does he intend to go, or draw the line? Who and how will he define terrorists or terrorism? Will he call down vengance on Martin McGuiness, a past IRA quartermaster and head of the Belfast brigade now that he is sat around the table of government in NI? These issues are not clear cut and as black and white as the rhetoric would have us believe. And surely he must understand that he will fuel fanatics, not remove them.

As for putting the frightners on terrorists of Arabic extraction, he must surely realise that they exist on the language of personification, illiteration, an synonim. Who can forget the "Mother of all battles" and descriptions of "our gallant eagles of the sky". I doubt that we will be putting the fear of God/Allah or anyone else into them. Besides, fundamentalist, extremist moslems look forward to death during Jihad because they believe it will gain them entry into heaven. given that many of the members of OBL's army are dirt poor Afghans and Pakistanis they have got nothing to lose by sacrificing the life her now for the life hereafter.

The Gulf war of '91 was a much more strategic game play in terms of how we fought the war. The enemy was defined, the objectives set, and it was one faction fighting what was esentially a war of attrition against the other. The so-called war against terrorism is much more fluid. The enemy is not defined, it could be the man in the street as much as the man in the Afghan cave. It can be fought by the enemy with missiles, rifles, or a pen knife and a hijacked 767. We have begun to understand in intricate detail how to fight this kind of war. Many of the British contributers on this forum have spent time in NI, some of us having patrolled the streets unsure of who the enemy is. We have fought this war patiently, covertly and overtly, and by means of more than air strikes. Jacko and i share a scepticism of the global war on terrorism because we know that when you strip away the rhetoric there are only 2 options, the first a short, sharp all-out attack that will draw you into heavy losses and a sustained war if you want to go all the way, the alternative being a truely inaffective carpet bombing campaign that kills indiscriminately as was evidenced in the strikes against Serbia. The second option is to figh a sustained covert operation that tries to win the hearts and minds of the opposition's country men while undermining the ability of those who would do us harm to attack through intelligence, insurgence, political pressure, and depriving them of the oxygen of propeganda and publicity.

Let us consider for a second the US/UK bombing of Serbia. Hardly any hardware was destroyed. Innocent lives were lost. Billions of dollars were spent, the Serbian army dug in, and the net result was an expensive PR exercise that failed to deliver any tangible results. Is this what any action against Afghanistan will be I wonder? Another Serbia? Will it be all talk by the politicians followed by a quick carpet bombing viewed by the world on CNN with no tangible results or goals achieved? Will Bush et al then pat themselves on the back for a job well done and proclaim once again that the might of the US has saved the day for the free west, while teaching the evil, demented and demonic middle east who is really in charge? Without careful consideration by men of thought and word now the men of action who will be sent to carry out the wishes of the politicians will be undertaking entirely the wrong deed. We should be asking the difficult questions now before we act, and I do not believe those tough questions are being asked. We are going dow the oft travelled and easy road of sheer retaliation.

I will comment briefly on some of the things you brought up. Indeed why should the US have got involved in WW2 prior to the Japanese attack? It was, as you point out, a European war. Had the US not been attacked it would have gladly ignored the plight of Europe unless it suited it for political or economic reaons. Fair enough in and of itself, yet had the US been attacked and Europe been at peace how long would it have been before Roosevelt had asked Churchill or de Gaul to commit to the fight? Who knows? but in recent decades the US has done what it will without thought or consequnce to other nations, yet you ask why does the world hate the US? This belief in your own benign nature masks the true picture that the US since the decline of the USSR has acted like a school yard bully because it has the size and capability to do whatever it pleases. I do not hate the US. It is a country for which i hold deep and lasting affection. It's people are warm and and loving. but as a friend of the US, I cannot stand back in silence and watch it make a mistake that would affect all of us in such a dire way words cannot begin to describe.

We may not have the forces we once did. We may have been responsible for our own share of history's tyrrany, but we have learned a number of lessons in recent years that the US has either declined to notice or has not yet been through. Domestic terrorism is one of those hard lessons.

Jackonicko

24th Sep 2001, 14:50

KBF,

"No tangible result from Allied Farce?"

How about from the domestic political pov? It let Tony Blair wrap himself in the Union Jack and come the 'great war leader routine' and appeased a public desire to be seen to be doing something? Remember that most people were brainwashed by CNN and the BBC and believe that it was another great success.

Let's hope that Dr America treats the disease of terrorism, and doesn't just slap on some B-52 ointment to alleviate the immediate symptoms.

"Why should America have jumped into yet ANOTHER BLOODY WAR started by Europeans yet again (in 1939, old chap, not 1940)".

Because then, as now, America set itself up as a force for good and as a state with a moral foreign policy, who would fight evil and enforce what was right and true. Then faced with the evil of Adolf Hitler, it sat back and did exactly nothing. Had the USA as a nation committed itself to the struggle in 1939 (as did so many of its brave citizens) it is quite possible that the attack on the West in May 1940 would not have happened, and likely that Italy would have stayed out of the war. Thousands of lives would have been saved. And the USA's national interests would not have been defended by the Europeans, while America enjoyed the cynical but profitable neutrality of a major arms supplier.

With regard to our 'climbing lofty peaks and preaching the higher morals, patience, and wisdom of English foreign policy over the last few centuries', you will find no-one more self-flagellating than the average Englishman when it comes to our colonial mistakes, appeasement in the 1930s, etc. But at least we admit to making mistakes, and look at the big picture to try to work out how to avoid repeating them. And nor do we come out with this black/white for us/against us torrent of ultimata.

It's not a matter of anti-Americanism - it's disappointment in a nation which we generally admire so much when it does occasionally slip from the moral position it normally chooses to occupy.

If I could end on a lighter note, I'd ask whether, since you respect the Brits so much, perhaps you'd check your facts (and spelling - negociate, indeed!). We have four of your C-17's, not two! JOKE!!!!

Didntdoit

24th Sep 2001, 18:45

Jacko

You clearly have the ability to put into good words what some think, and carry a convincing argument. Respect to you for that. It is a shame, however that you lecture us on the use of inappropriate language and yet persist in using the term 'redneck' to describe those in America (ie 90%) who want to see someone taken to account.

As for cowardly, well, that's your opinion and I commend your ability to foretell what is going to happen in the next few months/years or whatever. Given your clear definition, where do you place those who get to launch precision guided weapons from relatively safely? They could,after all, in the cause of 'due process', refuse to follow orders?

You, kbf1 and others have reasoned quite well on what should not be done, but I remain unconvinced about your arguements as to what, exactly, should be done. Jacko, you say that you would, were the worst to happen to you, 'beat the crap' out of whoever was undeniably guilty, but from where I sit, that would still make you a thug and vigilante who was not satisfied with the actions of the law.

The 'enemy' isn't interested in due process and I cannot for the life of me work out what they actually and reasonably want. The US Embassies, USS Cole, WTC, the Pentagon, the abortive attack that was prevented by Joe Public (god bless them); what were they supposed to achieve? What was the strategic objective? Where was the negotiating position?

You talk about not understanding culture and clearly we do not. I firmly believe that the 'do nothing' option is not an option and waiting patiently for x nmuber of months/years for the evidence to mount up is not a player. There will be other terrorist attacks, within and outside of the US, regardless of what decisions are made by GWB. Therefore, I do not see it as an unreasonable assumption that any State that openly allows organizations to exist and train within their borders needs to be firmly discouraged from doing so, whatever form of discouragement that may be. Angles to address the money supply need to be taken too. The Taliban could actually stop all this by waking up and smelling the coffee, but I fear that unless we, the West, come round to their way of life, not just thinking, then we cannot expect a result there.

The press, if I may say so, have done very well at hyping all this up and have fought the war many times over the last few days. Is that right? The rubbish about what we have done, what could do and what we are going to do is not helping - but no-one complains about that. IMHO, there are things that need to be done in the coming months/years, and done they need to be. Due process? Fairness? Civil liberties? Morally courageous? Sorry mate - the other side is not listening.

As for President Tony, it is decision time. We have, as many have said on this thread, been the victims of terrorist attcks for too long, fighting that particular war with one hand tied behind our backs. If the Governement has any ounce of integrity and sense of duty, the 'War' needs to be fought in this country too.

Jacko et al, I respect your words, but your version of the way it will be does not provide the answer, IMHO, of course.

Roc

24th Sep 2001, 21:29

Jacko, Kbf1,

I am obviously out of your league when it comes to the written word. You are both very eloquent, and evidently give a damn about spelling. But as others have said, What is your plan? You both preach patience and wisdom is the path to be taken, and you both conclude erroneously, that Bush is about to embark on WWIII. I will be flying into this conflict quite soon, so I, more than others here hope the pols do it right.
Jbf1..I hope some of your problems in NI do garner some attention, I have no control over what free Bostonians do with their donations. Also the difference between other past conflicts in Afghanistan and this, is that we are trying to cut off the funding and means of resupply that the terrorists have. In both Vietnam and the Russian foray into Afghanistan, the enemy had support, and was resupplied. This is an important aspect to consider. PS I know the US was the one supplying the Mujagadin (Spelling?) You sound alot like the hysterical press during the build-up of Desert Storm. If you listened to them the Iraqi's were battle- hardened, fanatical, killers who would eat the Marines for breakfast!! These terrorists are nothing more than Thugs with cash. I think Bush's posturing of the military and diplomatic moves to garner cooperation between nations is the wise course. I also believe, unlike you , that while some of these terrorists will stay to fight, the vast majority of them are literally ****ting in their pants right now (Spelling, Jacko?) and just like the Iraqi's before them, they will shrivel under the might of a real military force, not a bunch of bums with automatic weapons.
Off the subject, thanks for your consideration of my remarks in light of my location near the Trade Center bombings, You are correct to assume, I lost 2 friends, one was the pilot on the United Airlines flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. And by the way, Alot of Americans like Guns and owning them, and while this may seem horrible and uncivillised to your sensibilities, we seem to like it OK, despite the consequences it entails.

Jacko, I knew you guys had 2 C-17's wasn't sure if you had them all yet, and I know WWII started in 1939, I JUST WROTE 1940 AS A TIME REFERENCE. By the way If you all feel like the US left you in such dire straits back in 39-40-41, who did the LION's share of the fighting out in the Pacific? I hadn't heard about any other forces storming Iwo? I know British forces were out fighting on many fronts but we took the brunt of the Pacific casualties, so let's say were even. I'll be leaving soon, maybe when I come back I'll have attained a level of understanding of the Afghan people and the terrorists, class begins soon!

Jackonicko

25th Sep 2001, 01:34

I can see that doing nothing is not an option.
I can even see that retaliation/revenge is required.

But it must be against the guilty, and it should be in conjunction with actions which will make the underlying problem (ME hatred of the USA) go away.

There was a fascinating piece in one of the papers over the weekend arguing that the real guilty parties here are the Saudi state and its state religion of Wahabbism (spelling Jacko???) which is very different to Islam, although it is becoming increasingly dominant and powerful.

ROC,
I do wish you well, and respect for the spelling. Mujahaddin may be spelt however you like, since it's a transliteration from Arabic. I guess it should be include the word Jihad, though none of my client's style sheets use spellings that do. With regard to "****ting in their pants" also no problem, though here in England we might omit the word 'in' as to '**** one's pants' is a common phrase, and to '**** in one's pants' is merely more long-winded.

Another article over the weekend (by an ex-SAS man who trained the Muj) leads me to believe that you may be under-rating the calibre of your enemy. I hope not, though, and want to see a massive disparity in each side's casualties. I may be a bit liberal for your tastes, but I know which side I prefer.

I was more worried by your throwaway remark about what free Bostonians do with their money. What they did with it was support terrorists who made indiscriminate and cowardly attacks on innocent civilians, and you condemn that, right?

DDI, launching cruise missiles is entirely legitimate, and no serving military man should ever refuse a legitimate order. There's vigilamte lurking in all of us, which is why we need civilisation and laws. I don't pretend to need those things any less than anyone else. But one expects more from a state than a gutter journo. I use the term redneck, BTW, to describe those who scream for pure revenge 'against the A-rabs' and not for those who want justice or retaliation purely against the guilty.

I agree with much of what you say, but it puzzles me that you should be so resistant to the idea of ALSO solving the underlying problems, which make the USA and ourselves such a tempting target for extreme Islamic terrorist groups. Do you feel that they will somehow have won if we cede an inch of moral ground?

kbf1

25th Sep 2001, 02:24

Roc:

To be entirely honest, I am not sure that I have the answers, but if I had to define a criteria it would be thus:

Freeze all terrorist assets in the US (as GWB has done with OBL linked funds) as well as denying political support groups and other cover organisations from trading.

Educate US citizens as to what is an is not terrorism. I think that widse misunderstanding exists. How many American Bostonians would know that the IRA blew up a bomb in a crowded shopping centre in Warrington the day before Mother's Day killing, amongst others, a 12 year old boy called Tim Parry? A definition of who the terrorist oprganisations are would help.

Applying diplomatic pressure on countries that have terrorist groups and agreeing on wider extradition treaties that are global.

Establishing beyond reasonable doubt (not necessarily to the same extent as in a court of law, but sufficient not to give rise to doubt) who was behind the WTC attacks.

Define what action is to be taken and set limits. If the plan does not go well, define at what stage you will pull back and re-org.

Define the "enemy" even if he will not define himself. That may mean letting some potential terrorists go.

Select targets sparingly. If you have any doubts at all, don't hit it. Avoid the Chinese Embassy at all costs!!

Minimise the risk to civillians to zero. Memories of dead inncoent civilians will last longer than destroyed training camps.

Increase aid to Afghanistan. Make an effort in your diplomacy to understand and support the moslem way of life.

Put intelligence agencies and opratives on the ground. Do not rely on other to get your intel for you. This is where the CIA have got it horribly wrong in the past.

Change the language used from one of revenge to one of support. "We are trying to free you to live your Islamic life to the full as you have the right to do" rather than "we will bring you to justice".

Stop supporting Israel, even if it is a massive vote looser. They are capable of looking after themselves and would probably stop pushing Palestine around if they knew that they did not have the US to back it up. Words like holcaust and guilt trips are inevitable from the Jews in the US, but you have to live with that and Israel will get the message that it either talks peace or goes it alone.

Take note of the wishes and needs of other nations. If you want their help in coming years keeping terrirsts at bay you have to drop the siege mentality and give as well as take. The oil industry and the car industry may not like the Kyoto Accord, or the '72 ICBM Treaty might not suit you, but you may have to swallow that one.

Build bridges with Iran and other moderate ME nations. Iraq will always be a lost cause, but it is about time to re-think sanctions. If you can find a more effective way of punishing Iraq, the so be it, but again images of suffering babies starving to death make a lasting image.

Appply a fair and consistent hand to those with whom you deal.

That would be my starting point. The more politically astute will no doubt add or subtract from this list. As I said, I don't pretend to have the answers, but it is time to ask the difficult questions before we act rathe than doing something we will later regret.

Take care with the Mujahadin/Taliban. They are hardened to their terrain and fanatical in a way we cannot imagine. They see death as something to celebrate as martyrs and will look to inflict damage on the "great Satan" at the cost of their own lives to earn their place in heaven. Any ground offensive would be fought on their terms. They know their terrain, and unlike the US/British armies they wear no uniform and are no respecters of the Geneva convention. They will fight a guerilla war and will not be defeated in conventional terms. it would be a mistake to underestimate these men. The Iraqis in the Gulf War were conscripts who were threatened with death if they deserted. to reinforce the point, we understand that senior Iraqi officers pulled every 100th man from the trenches and shot him infront of his platoon to demonstrate that the government meant business. they were poorly trained, fed, clothed, equipped, and very poorly motivated. They no more wanted to be there as we did. The Taliban however are totally committed to the cause and will fight to the last.

Best of British Roc, and a beer will be waiting on your return.

Jacko:

The Wahabbis are not a religion as much a sect within Islam. Like the Scribes and Pharisees of Judeaism they have a different slant on Islam. It comes from the differing interpritations on the Koran by Muhammed's early followers who seperated themselves from the Shi'a and Sunny tribes. They are to Islam what Joehova's Witnesses or Mormons are to Christianity, a derivation of the core system of belief.

Jackonicko

25th Sep 2001, 15:20

KBF. Quite right on the Wahhabi sect, though it is embraced as the state religion of Saudi Arabia. (Presumably Sunni rather than Shia in view of that).

It's an incredibly 'stripped down' and fundamentalist version of Islam, rejecting all modernising influences within Islam, seeking to return to a probably mythical golden age of simplicity and certainty. It relies on short prayers, undecorated mosques and extreme hostility to mainstream Islam, and to any form of Western influence, corruption or decadence. Wahhabis punish anyone who enjoys music (other than the drum) and condemn those who don't pray as unbelievers. It's almost tailor made to appeal to desert arabs, and in doing so, also appeals to today's demand for simple solutions (hence the rise of fundamentalism in so many religions) They are, if you like, Islam's protestant puritans or bolsheviks, and will not write the name of Mohammed or celebrate his birthday. They would claim to be 'better' and purer Moslems than followers of mainstream Islam.

It's relatively new, though, Ibn Wahhab (the cult's founder) having lived during the 18th Century. Historically it espoused the mass killing of unbelievers and/or opponents, and in Eighteen-oh-something the Wahhabis massacred the city of Karbala (Qa'arba'ala?) killing 2,000 ordinary civilian citizens.

Wahhabis formed the main opposition to the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire, and all those Johnnies dashing around with TE Lawrence (you've seen the movie) were Wahhabis.

I'm led to believe that most Islamic terrorism has been committed by Wahhabis, who may have a more relaxed attitude to killing innocent civilians than do mainstream Moslems (to whom it is a sin) and who may not embrace the Prophet's teachings on the validity of other 'Abrahamic' religions (Judao-Christian), and who may also not regard suicide as a sin.

Interestingly, its critics believe that Wahhabis are the 'trouble from the Nejd' prophesied by Mohammed himself, as being a likely source of confusion and corruption of true Islam!

Worryingly, a huge number of Mosques (especially in the US and other Western nations) are coming under the control of Wahhabi Imams......

Didntdoit

25th Sep 2001, 19:16

What a fascinating thread this has turned out to be. Seriously.

Jacko - you are not being entirely fair. Just because I have not stated a desire to address the bigger issue does not mean I am resistant to it. I just do not believe that the underlying causes, should/can/will be addressed first. Facta, non verba, will and should , IMHO, take precedent.... if the Taliban are not prepared to cede.

Please, carry on.

Jackonicko

27th Sep 2001, 01:37

Over on Jet Blasts (Jet Blasts!!!) after a thread criticising Israel's human rights record, (and in some cases casting ridiculous accusations about possible Israeli complicity in the 11 September outrage) Danny felt compelled to post the following warning:

"Due to the almost impossible task of policing these forums I have decided that there will be no more politics or religion discussed on the website. You may consider this decision despotic and you may be right but then who gave you a vote? All current threads that I consider to be too politically or religiously sensitive will be closed and any new ones will be dealt with accordingly. Anyone objecting to this decision can make their complaints in writing to [email protected]. Replies may or may not be forthcoming, depending on my workload or mood. Being a despot has its rewards."

One can only hope that he doesn't mean it 100% literally

X-QUORK

27th Sep 2001, 16:55

Whilst not wishing to make light of the atrocities commited in the US, it's worth noting that some Americans are able to put a satirical spin on events - a dig at the media's need to find stories :
http://www.theonion.com/

West Coast

28th Sep 2001, 10:19

Jacko
As articulate as you are you display a niave view. The pedastel you would put the U.S. on is unattainable. I suppose that provides you with fodder, ah hell, its late and my spell check....

DESPERADO

28th Sep 2001, 11:24

KBF & JACKO,
Like many, been a bit busy so apologies for my late return to the debate. Both of you are eloquent and have many good points to make, a lot of which I agree with. However, now that we all appear to be debating in a civilised manner (I'll take your 'apology' Jacko in the way that it wasn't intended), I have a couple of things to add. I still want to ask you Jacko (yes I know, back to Syria again), how you see Syria's stance on Israel softening in real terms, not just in its rhetoric. If they really are serious about peace with Israel, then why do they fund and train and supply terrorist groups, noticeably Hamas (thats now, not 25 years ago), who quite clearly don't want peace. This appears to be the type of skin deep softening that Sinn Fein has taken up in NI to gain worldwide recognition and legitmacy, I think we all know what a crock that is.

Syria are not the only ones in the region still sponsoring terrorism and claiming to be a 'moderate' state. Israel may be a lot of things, and I certainly don't condone its behaviour on everything, but at least it is a democracy. At least its women can drive (some might say that that is a bad thing), vote, wear skirts, not be beaten or stoned in public, beheaded for having sex with the wrong person, dance and generally be treated as a human being and an equal. Yes their are lots of differing cultures, and we should learn to cope with that, with all of our western liberlism, but, I for one am a little tired of people making excuses for appalling deeds carried out in the name of religion. I don't believe that any God, whoever he belongs to, would want his people/women (of all races and religions) treated in such a barbaric manner because some 2000 year old book says so. I realise this last bit is a little off scope, but there you go.

KBF, liked a lot of your solutions, but have a snag with a couple. You talked about not using the language of revenge, but of support. Who's sensibilities are we offending by asking for revenge? You actually used the word justice when talking about revenge, are you suggesting that when we catch a murderer that we try and understand him and support him and that we don't seek justice, or is the international terrorist different somehow because he has a cause. Admittedly, some of the Terrorist groups in the ME have Israel as public enemy number 1, but I don't believe this to be the case with OBL. I just think that he hates the USA and all it stands for, Political, Economic and Religious freedom. He hates the way that western and American culture is spreading through his homelands. I don't believe that the USA's support for Israel was the reason for the attacks, indeed, if the USA stopped supporting Israel it would not make any difference to OBL. It is the 'Great Satan' that is the enemy, and for that reason alone we should all be worried. the attacks were directed at the USA and the West, and thats why I believe we should stamp on this hard.

As I said above, your arguments are well put and well written, but, I think you could do with being a little less patronising to our American cousins who are not as stupid as you seem to think they are. Pointing out lists of foreign policy mistakes and arguing about who won the war are not helpful as we are not so squeaky clean ourselves at home or abroad (NI, Zimbabwe, Bosnia, Falklands (although we won that one in the end)). It is a very sensible thing to sit back in your armchair and try and understand a thing before reacting, unfortunately some things are beyond our comprehension, yet they require action anyway. And please stop telling us about the over reaction of the US and the carpet bombing etc etc, they haven't done a thing yet.
Anyway, here's to a continued lively debate, off for a non-alcoholic beverage and a kebab.
D

Diablo

29th Sep 2001, 18:14

Is Bush waiting for the Dead Sparrows to get out there to open the show? After they leave Dubai, they could nip in on there way to Pakistan!

I can't really believe they are going ahead with the tour in the current climate. But BAe systems have a seat on the board and we know what that means.

Can the diesel pods be replaced with Mausers?

:eek:

kbf1

30th Sep 2001, 00:08

The question was posed about how supportive Saudi Aeabia would be (can't quite remember who or when, and I don't want to re-read everything). I would say that in spite of it being the spritual home of Islam it will, at least for as long as King Fahd is on the throne support the west. I say for as long as he is on the throne, because he is ill and his grip on power weakening. Since the late 60's Saudi has recognised it's tribal populous and it's dependance on oil for it's wealth. Ibn Saud had the foresight to realise that oil is an expendable commodity and fickle in price. He did 2 things to counter this. First, he started a cartel, OPEC, to control prices of oil at betweem $18-22 per barrel. When price dips below $18 a barrell, production of crude oil is cut, and vice versa. The second thing he did was institute the 5 year economic plan. Every 5 years a new plan is rolled out and concentrates on parts of the economy that need developing. The current 5 year plan is 18 months into it's cycle and is focussed on technology, Saudi Arabia having got it's first ISP in 1998. Secondary industries like services are also being developed, and the Offset run by Crown Prince Abdullah is still concentrated on aerospace and engineering. However, Saudi has a recognised problem, that of over-rich and over-idle youngsters who do not have to work at a professional level, let alone a menial one to have money. Many become playboys and wasters through their family wealth, and others become political agitators and some turn to terrorism. With the need for menial jobs to be done there is an ever-present demand for external labour markets, such as the Phillipines to take the roles of domestics, nannies, cleaners, cooks, and factory workers. The paradox is it is this reliance on infidel workers that has upset OBL so much. This influx of westerners, and the remaining UK/US forces on Saudi soil has led OBL, with all of that wealth and time on his hands, to distort the true meaning of Islam, as in his mind the holy cities of Mekah and Medinah have been defiled and are no longer pure. The less important holy city of Jerusalem has, in his mind, also been defiled by Israel and the Christians of the west, funded by the US Dollar. So intent is he on returning Saudi Arabia to the Islamic fundamentals of the middle ages through Sharia'h law, that he sees that there is no other way to win than to destroy America. In his mind, destroying America would remove the last stumbling block to returning the world to an Islamic world of the 10th Century. For as long as there is McDonalds, US TV, US Industry, US style democracy, US cars, US aircraft, US anything, the world will be soft and will not listen to (his) reason. If America, the Great Satan, is softening the minds of muslims, it must die. If people of free will do ot accept his brand of Islam, they too must die as corrupt infidels unable to see the truth (sic) for the poisoning of US brainwashing.

So why should we show restraint, mercy, and understanding? Because no matter how hard that is we must demonstrate to the Islamic world that we as westerners, and mainly Christians do not seek the destruction of Islam. We must show that we care for the Islamic world, we must win hearts and minds, we must show that we want to prevent death and aid life (very Islamic principles), and that we are both tolerant and just. This makes the job of OBL much harder in trying to spread his propeganda that the west is decadent and Satanic. We also have a moral duty and obligation to help those Afghans who are fleeing their home towns in fear of US reprisal. We must show, in the west, that they have nothign to fear but fear itself. We must show that the perpetrator of that fear is OBL, and we must not let him turn his people against us. If we fall into the trap of using the language of revenge we play straight into his hands. If we wage war on innocent civilians, we play into his hands.

Yes, Desp, I do think that we should try and understand our enemies. Remember, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer! The reason that the attacks against the US were so "successful" is simply because the CIA, and the FBI misunderstood the nature of the threat and the likliehood of attack. They misunderstood the militancy and fanatacism of the attackers. They misunderstood the culture, the language, the promise of eternal life, and the attraction that held over a life of penury to the 19 hijackers. They also misunderstood the importance of both folklore and fudalism in Arabic culture. With a folklore hero united against a common enemy, there is purpose to the Koranic principle of Jihad, which all muslims must face. By defining an enemy with whom to embark on Jihad, paradise was assured. Unfortunately, OBL misunderstands that Jihad, or Holy War, is a war against personal vice and the fight for virtue. Islam understand God to be universally merciful, and that he does not wish to see death and destruction in His name. I am sure that should God wish to destroy nations and worlds, he would do it in a stroke of His devine hand rather than have his devout followers kill in his name. I am sure that he is quite capable of destroying nations on his own without the aid of fallible man, if that is what He wants. In this way, we fail to understand our enemy at our peril.

I never for a moment said that our American cousins were stupid. They differ from us British as much as they do the very people who attacked them. The most common mis-understanding (on both sides of the Atlantic) is that the British and Americans share a culture. This could not be further from the truth! The Americans have more in common with the Israelis than the British in this respect, and this is where my worry came to be. The talk in the first week was of retribution, revenge, attack, of not being destroyed, resolve, of crusades, of wars against terrorism, all of which serve to paint a picture of an immediate reprisal come what may. Justice served the American way, cold, swift, and hard. This is all well and done when it is a nation that attacks nation. Had Afghanistan as a country attacked the US, it would be far easier to talk in these terms and act as the words are spoken. However, it is a network of terrorists that we are talking about, possibly state sponsored, but not a nation in their own right. The danger that was faced was simply the US and the UK having to act on the words they spoken without a foundation for doing so. If the US can't prove beyond doubt that OBL had been behind the acts, that the Taliban had colluded, and could not pinpoint OBL exactly, define it's objectives, and carry them out without the ever-pervasive mission-creep taking hold, then it would have been an act of in-justice. It would have been an act of terrorism in and of itself.

So where does that leave us today? The war on terrorism still hasn't begun in real terms. If it had, the loyalists and republicans in NI would be under house arrest. McGuinnes and Adams would have been kicked off the NI Assembly. Murderors, bombers, and quartermasters would be back inside the Maze with their assets frozen. But they aren't. I could take Blair more seriously if he could remove the splinter from his hand after he removed the plank from his eye. I would take the "war on terrorism" more seriously if it were even handed and no respector of ideologies, but it seems that in this war, some terrorists are more terrible than others. If this so called "war" is to have any effect in the ME, then it has to begin at home.

Flatus Veteranus

2nd Oct 2001, 00:50

The language of conventional jurisprudence ("...judicial process, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, observing international law...") is totally irrelevant in the context of the events of 11 Sep. To draw analogies with the correct response to domestic burglary is particularly bizarre. The scale of the destruction and loss of life, and the means by which they were wrought, demand new thinking. The first requirement is to defend our civilisation against further similar attacks. We mightthus buy enough time to evolve a new international treaty governing terrorism, methods of identifying terrorists and eliminating them. The conventions that evolved on Piracy might serve as an example.

Jackonicko

2nd Oct 2001, 02:29

Public pronouncements by the Saudis saying that they won't allow their bases to be used for military action against Moslems and Arabs are a powerful illustration of why getting and keeping the Arab world on side is important.

Also noteworthy that the EU foreign ministers have sought to link Israel/Palestine with action against Bin L.

Time to get in line, Uncle Sam?

kbf1

2nd Oct 2001, 02:30

Flattus..why should the concepts of jurisprudence not apply to the events of the 11th September? Are we to become judge, jury, and executioner? Where is this evidence that the atrocity was down to OBL? I have heard Tony Blair talk of irrefutable evidence, yet very little has been offered. Why should we dispense with the concepts of jurisprudence just because it may be convenient. Again, why is international law irrelevant? (though i do agree that a comparison with domestic burglary is irrelevant)

I read from your post that we must defend our civilisation. Who is to say that we are civilised and the Arabs are not? What is it that we defend except a relative set of values, relative only to the world as we see it. The crux of my arguments so far has been that we have to acknowledge that Arab culture, though different from ours, is equally valid and that we run the risk of of starting what will be in effect another cold war drawn along east/west lines around an axis of the Gulf of Oman. The danger of such a treaty you mention is that it may well be a treaty aimed at the destruction of the Arab world for the sake of western civilisation.

DESPERADO

2nd Oct 2001, 03:57

kbf,
agree with most of what you said again, although I am a little more hawkish in my attitude.
I am not sure why I have to accept their culture as valid though. 900 years ago, we were most definately the barbarians when we arrived in Arab lands, burned pillaged and looted in the name of christianity; I agree that the word crusade is most inappropriate for what may be about to happen. The arab culture was far more sophisticated and 'modern' for want of a better word.
Now however, I don't accept the way that women, for example, are treated within this culture. In many countries they are treated as 3rd class citizens (behind the pets and livestock). They are not treated as equals, or revered in the way that they were 900 yrs ago, they are treated very badly and religious expression is used as an excuse. I am sure that you have probably travelled extensively in the Middle-east and seen this first hand. You talked about the imported labour, much of that labour is imported from countries such as the Phillipines and Bangladesh and these people are treated quite literally as slaves.
So in answer to your point, and at risk of being accused of being a racist (which I most definately am not). I accept their art, their religion, their history, their poetry, their stories and the often very warm hospitality and all that is good about the 'culture', but I don't accept the indefensible, the cruelty and the disrepect to other human beings that is a way of life for some. I am certainly not saying that western culture doesn't have its problems, guns, drugs, 2 world wars, etc etc, but at least society as a rule acknowledges where those faults are and trie to fix them.
I genuinely believe that Islam is a peaceful religion, but as I said before, I don't believe that any God would want its people of any sex or creed treated in this way. I think we need to stop excusing peoples actions just because it is 'their culture'. I am not advocating going to war with a nation because of the way that it treats a section of its society (Kosovo anyone), but no I don't accept it, and I don't believe it to be valid.
Hope I haven't offended anyone, just my point of view.

West Coast

2nd Oct 2001, 10:03

Jacko
Keep your eye on the ball, avoid allowing the EU's agenda to water down the task at hand. I agree that the Palestinian issue needs to be discussed, however at an appropriate time. It is not a starter issue as applied to the events of 9/11 except as back ground noise.

To paraphrase you as I am too tired to track down your exact words, Leave the Israelis to their own devices,devoid of U.S.support and they will moderate. I disagree. A concern the western world, and I dare say the secular leadership of Pakistan is the de-stabilizing effect of Pakistans support of the U.S. Why should we be any less concerned about destabilizing another nuclear power? Its not hard to draw a picture of an isolated Israel, bunker mentality, armed with Jericho missiles. Most certainly a recipe for disaster. Dialogue vs missiles, you call it. Prior to replying, at least consider what the lay of the land would look like without the overt and discreet pressures the U.S. applies on Israel. Give me some notable and significant examples of alienation achieving the goal of bringing/returning a nation to the fold. For every one you name, I can name one or more that have slipped further away.
For my own edification, do you believe the PLO to be the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people?

Jackonicko

2nd Oct 2001, 14:10

West Coast
Stunningly good final point.
Are the PLO the legitimate voice of the Palestinians? Perhaps not quite in a UK/US Democratic sense, but then outside Europe, which ruling parties/organisations are (some, yes, but many aren't - including some of our closest allies)?

I'd prefer to think of the PLO as being the Palestinian's legitimate representatives than Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other extremist organisation which still embraces terrorism.

I'd also argue that the PLO has no less of a democratic mandate than the present government of Israel, which has excluded vast swathes of its rightful electorate through ethnic cleansing.

The Palestinian issue is not back ground noise, and needs to be discussed now and sorted out quickly. This is an appropriate time. The plain fact is that this latest US 'crusade' against terrorism (which I regard as being entirely justifiable and 'good' so long as its properly targeted) is being endangered by lukewarm support from many sides - including many nations which should be the USA's natural allies - including EU nations, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (which had to be forced to co-operate on the threat of being regarded as an 'enemy' regime).

One of the main reasons for this lukewarm support lies in broad sympathy for the moderate Arab position - that Israeli excesses and cavalier attitude to UN resolutions is ignored by the USA, which thereby appears to be anti-Arab and Anti-Islamic.

Even in Britain, where Tony Blair has leapt to the USA's side, there is some concern over the danger of this adventure being perceived as 'Arab/Moslem-bashing'. It's not a case of 'watering down' the task at hand, it's a practical matter (the fight against terrorism will be more effective and more widely supported if this issue is addressed) and a moral one. Historically, US foreign policy has been quick to fight evil, and to support the rights of the oppressed. Only in the case of Israel has it been quite so blind to 'right' and 'wrong'. Forcing the Israelis to disengage from Palestinian territory (and areas which should be Palestinian, like East Jerusalem) is as much a case of fighting evil as is unseating the taliban.

I didn't advocate leaving Israel to stew, BTW, I advocated presenting an ultimatum. Reach a settlement or lose US aid and military aid. Which nations have 'returned to the fold' after being isolated or excluded? South Africa? Rhodesia? (And it took many years in those cases because their principal arms suppliers never really abided by international sanctions, and there were alternative sources. Moreover, Israel is only being asked to cede territory, and not to accept the destruction of its entire system of government. No-one is seriously suggesting that Israel should become a secular Arab state, and everyone accepts that Israeli apartheid will continue within its new borders.

PS: Interesting that the main target of the Israeli Army at the weekend was a Christian Palestinian village - most of us think of the Palestinians as being just another bunch of uppity A-rabs!

Interesting too that newspaper reports at the weekend suggest that senior Israeli politicians believe that Sharon and the Army may be deliberately undermining the proposed ceasefire, and don't want peace. The headline was about the Army chief advocating or accepting a plan to assassinate Arafat himself.

West Coast

2nd Oct 2001, 22:19

Jacko
We agree on more than we disagree. I also would like the U.S. to tighten the screws on Israel, however not to the extent you would or with the latent threat of excommunication.

In your eyes the PLO has metamorphosed from the mother of all terrorist organizations to a political entity. While your answer waffled somewhat to this point, it struck me as a tacit acceptance. I guess we all have to hitch our wagons somewhere. You stand on a slippery slope, I am sure you know that though. Allowing myself to see from a left of center viewpoint (no offense meant) I imagine their stock is more legit via repudiation of terrorism. As a past acknowledged umbrella organization for terrorism as oppossed to the actual operator, the distance is increased, but the finger prints are still there. I must admit suprise that with a few keystrokes you give legitimacy to an organization that has so much European blood on it. Find the genesis of most European and middle eastern terrorist organizations prior to the late 80's and you will find the PLO's stamp of approval. If my understanding of its history is on, the IRA was one of the PLO's star pupils going back to the first tricontinental conference in Cuba in the early 1960's. To follow parallels in your arguement then then seinn fein, Gerry Adams specificallymight be considered the legitimate voice of the disenfranchised in NI, buts that an arguement for another day.

To tie the Palestinian issue as a rider to dialogue over the events of 9/11 as advocated by the EU is to imply that it was casaul to those events. Clearly it was not. Any attempt to do so will fail as it oversimplies Arab politics. All problems cannot be taken in their totality, but as singular issues, tabled for now.

The perception of Arab bashing concerns me also, but given the framework we operate within, I am at a loss to approach it much differently than the way the western world is doing it. The Talibans response by calling for a jihad reminds me of a defense lawyer playing the race card to muddy the waters. We agree, at least as viewed from an Arab standpoint on moderate Arab governments reasoning for their ambiguity on the show of support for the war on terrorism. They have more to lose in the long run the do the western world. One comment, however is that Arab governments have always left themselves wiggle room, no matter how just the cause.

Perhaps this is tough for a journo type, but view press reports with a critical eye, re: the plan to kill Yasser. There are many in the press here who theorize that the CIA killed JFK.

kbf1

3rd Oct 2001, 00:55

Desp.. your opening comment intrigues me a little because you say that you are more hawkish than I am, but I cannot determine from your profile where you reside. This may be a slight amount of prejudice on my part, but I would expect the more hawkish to be American yet your spelling gives you away as British. I make no more of it than that. Each to their own, and you are as entitled to your perspective as am I. At least you recognise your hawkish approach.

I would disagree with your comment that the Arab world may have been more civilised 900 years ago, but less civilised now than the western world. If we look at the reasoning behind many of the Arabic practices you will see that they are grounded in reason. The practice of making women wear the chador has its origins in the men of the middle east being less restrained in their sexual practices than Mohammed deemed was good for them. In order to protect the women the practice of wearing the veil came about. Some historians argue that by covering the woman's face a man would find it harder to determine age. As age is a mark of respectibility, older women were treated much better than younger women. The same is true of te practice of men chaperoning women. This was to afford them some protection when travelling. Even the more fundamentalist aspect of not educating women comes from the role of the mother as the cornerstone of the family. It is not true to say that the more fundamentalist muslims deny women all education, rather they are educated to the extent they need to raise a family. Men in the middle east, I have noticed, are far more respectful of their wives than western men. I hear all to often disparaging comments made a bout wives, evemn in jest, which would never be made by Arabic men. While it may offend the sensibilities of more feminist women and liberal men that women do not have the access to universities and careers that they have here, it must be remembered that all things are relative. In a culture that promotes family values more than materialism and careerism, not all women want to work. In fact many moslem women would view a career as second place to raising a family.

As I said before, while it might be that we in the west find the treatment of women offensive we must ask ourselves "how do the women themselves feel?" They may or may not want our rightous indignations.

What must be remembered is that it is not the religion per se which does unspeakable things to women, rather the fallable interpretation of fallable man. I cannot see that any God who is hailed as merciful would want to demonstrate that mercy by having his creation destroy itself and wreak acts of mass murder on a fellow human in his name. As I have stated previously, if God, in His power, wanted to destroy whole nations he would surely do it, and do it without the aid of mankind.

So where does this leave us? If we can say that we believe that God did not wish to see the people in and around the WTC die for no reason, i am sure that He would not wish to see civilians die in Afghanistan. I am at least hopeful that as the days pass that any strikes will not be a knee-jerk reaction to the events of the 11/9. What does concern me still is the definition of any legitimate target. This along with the burden of proof that I would like to see still has not been met. As a voter I have the right to demand this evidence before any attacks have been carried out in my name.

Jackonicko

3rd Oct 2001, 03:21

West Coast,

No-one in their right mind would call me left-of-centre - or even terribly centre. I'm a small c conservative with some markedly right wing views, and a handful of left wing ones. Like most people, I suspect.

It's not just in my eyes that the PLO have 'metamorphised' into a more-or-less legitimate organisation. The US Govt. recognise them, as do the UN, as do the Israeli Government (more or less). Yes, they were terrorists (I don't accept any differentiation between terrorists and 'freedom fighters' if they target a single civilian).

But they are at least 'former terrorists' and they do want to negotiate with Israel, be accepted by the West, and (crucially) accept Israel's right to exist.

If we refuse to deal with 'ex-terrorists' (and Arafat was quite definitely one of them) where do we draw the line? Over here in the UK we have ex-terrorist MPs, and other ex-terrorists have become heads of state whether Menachim Begin (Stern Gang) or dear old cuddly old Saint Nelson Mandela, or Bob Mugabe.......

With specific reference to Northern Ireland, I personally wish that someone had 'topped' Adams and McGuiness long ago, but recognise that they do now have some democratic mandate. I would point out that their repudiation of terrorist violence has never been as satisfactory as that of the main PLO leaders, while I only wish that they were as willing to compromise as Arafat now seems to be.

It may be distasteful, but once these terrorists embrace politics (the ballot box rather than the Armalite) then we have to deal with them. Sometimes we must even deal with active terrorists (like the Northern Alliance gangs of the late Ahmed Shah Massoud) if they are fighting a greater evil, or if they have right on their side.

And in the case of Israel's continued intransigence and illegal occupation of lands seized by force of arms, there is clearly some right on the Palestinian's side.

With regard to cynicism over the Israeli army's desire to assassinate Arafat, the source is not just some 'hick' or hack journo - it's from an interview with Shimon Peres (in Yediot Ahronoth - a leading Israeli daily), in which he accuses the Army Deputy Chief of Staff (General Moshe Yaalon) of wanting to eliminate Arafat. A dove only by Israeli standards, Peres has inferred that the Govt is not committed to peace, and has deliberately provoked incidents in order to disrupt ceasefire and peace initiatives.

The Israeli leader of the opposition, Mr Yosser Sarid, has even hinted darkly that the 'especially large number of killed and wounded on the Palestinian side' has been the result of deliberate Govt policy.

So it's not that I'm being pro-PLO and anti Israeli - even the Israeli parliamentary opposition would find little to argue about with what I have to say about the moral and practical need for a solution and an accomodation. It's only the ultra-right wing and theocratic zionists who refuse to cede another inch of territory, and who blame Arafat for every problem.

I would re-stress that the Palestine issue is a pre-requisite to gaining Arab support for the legitimate need for a war against terrorism. This isn't about ambiguity or a mere 'show of support', it's the case that from an Arab perspective (and even to many European governments) the reaction so far has looked like an American-led war against a long-standing enemy and scapegoat (Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism). The US must act to correct this misapprehension, and the best way of doing so is by jettisoning the one really anti-Arab strand of its present foreign policy. Why should UN embargoes and resolutions be rigorously applied against Iraq, and ignored completely when they apply to Israel? Why was Milosovic a war-criminal and Sharon a hero? The USA would not accept Israel's behaviour and repression in any other nation. This is hypocrisy and undermines any claim that the USA has to being an ethical state, which is a tragic shame, because almost everywhere else in its foreign policies, the USA does provide a 'shining light' for the rest of the world to follow.

I wonder whether you (in the US) gain a balanced view of what's actually going on in the Middle East I'm not sure we do over here, where our media tends to be slightly pro-Israeli and slightly anti-Arab. While the Taliban have declared Jihad, were you aware, for example, that the leading Imam in Saudi Arabia has already criticised this and questioned its validity, and has issued a Fatwah specifically stating that the suicide bombers on 11 September were wrong, anti-Islamic, and stating that on no account should they be viewed as martyrs?