partagas
10th Oct 2001, 20:15
We live, as always, in a violent, vengeful and ignorant world,-read the posts of Airbubba et al-, and these were not arguments and language overheard in the roughest public bar, but the opinions of estimed professional pilots!
Thank you Abgo,Techman and Oldjet Jockey for your illuminating contributions.Frustratingly your topic was closed before I could reply.
It was manifestly inappropriate to label various European governments as cowardly on the grounds of having not contributed yet to U.S. attacks on Afghanistan.Since the outset of the current initiative the US administration has dictated that it has reserved for itself the right to act unconstrained and unilaterally (refer to Donald Rumsfelds early reactions).
Notwithstanding this the USA has enjoyed widespread support from European governments. That this has not been translated into battlefield operations so far is surely due to the ample capacity of the U.S. military machine.They have not been requested to participate further.
Now let us consider the efficacy of the Allied response and it,s implications. The declared objective is to eradicate terrorist organisations by destroying their bases, training facilities and military hardware and by cutting off the financial backing that supports these.A coherent strategy to counter a formidably armed paramilitary threat.However the operatives who destroyed the WTC were lightly armed young civilians requiring little or no infrastructure nor funding.
As has been repeatedly advised by suitably qualified commentators, the attacks on the WTC constituted an act of terrorism ,albeit a highly graphic and dreadful one.
Politicians could have emphasised this fact whilst announcing that greatly expanded activities of intelligence services and a range of stricter security measures would seek to counter the threat,whilst urging calm and a return to as much normality as possible as soon as possible.
An act of war did not occur on Sept 11 - consult any dictionary,lexicon or relevant legal reference -, however the apocalyptic response of world leaders may have engendered one now.They are surely aware of this and no doubt the air attacks prepare the way for occupying land forces to install a government more palatable to the US than the Taliban.Such a response is a palliative to the concerned general population who seek a distinctly indentifiable enemy who can thereby be comfortingly destroyed.However such a response is disingenuous ,and seemingly transparently so, since public confidence in air travel has not been restored.Moreover the collateral damage suffered by our industry as a result of this strategy has been heavy.
Thread closed AND moved to more appropriate forum. If you want to start discussions then try the Aircrew Notices Forum for example.
[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: Capt PPRuNe ]
Thank you Abgo,Techman and Oldjet Jockey for your illuminating contributions.Frustratingly your topic was closed before I could reply.
It was manifestly inappropriate to label various European governments as cowardly on the grounds of having not contributed yet to U.S. attacks on Afghanistan.Since the outset of the current initiative the US administration has dictated that it has reserved for itself the right to act unconstrained and unilaterally (refer to Donald Rumsfelds early reactions).
Notwithstanding this the USA has enjoyed widespread support from European governments. That this has not been translated into battlefield operations so far is surely due to the ample capacity of the U.S. military machine.They have not been requested to participate further.
Now let us consider the efficacy of the Allied response and it,s implications. The declared objective is to eradicate terrorist organisations by destroying their bases, training facilities and military hardware and by cutting off the financial backing that supports these.A coherent strategy to counter a formidably armed paramilitary threat.However the operatives who destroyed the WTC were lightly armed young civilians requiring little or no infrastructure nor funding.
As has been repeatedly advised by suitably qualified commentators, the attacks on the WTC constituted an act of terrorism ,albeit a highly graphic and dreadful one.
Politicians could have emphasised this fact whilst announcing that greatly expanded activities of intelligence services and a range of stricter security measures would seek to counter the threat,whilst urging calm and a return to as much normality as possible as soon as possible.
An act of war did not occur on Sept 11 - consult any dictionary,lexicon or relevant legal reference -, however the apocalyptic response of world leaders may have engendered one now.They are surely aware of this and no doubt the air attacks prepare the way for occupying land forces to install a government more palatable to the US than the Taliban.Such a response is a palliative to the concerned general population who seek a distinctly indentifiable enemy who can thereby be comfortingly destroyed.However such a response is disingenuous ,and seemingly transparently so, since public confidence in air travel has not been restored.Moreover the collateral damage suffered by our industry as a result of this strategy has been heavy.
Thread closed AND moved to more appropriate forum. If you want to start discussions then try the Aircrew Notices Forum for example.
[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: Capt PPRuNe ]