Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

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

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

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

Old 23rd Sep 2001, 16:10
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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 ]
kbf1 is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2001, 18:24
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Africa
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
Cardinal Puff is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2001, 19:12
  #43 (permalink)  
Roc
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
Roc is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2001, 22:09
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Washington, DC USA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
DC Meatloaf is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2001, 22:33
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up

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! As for Mr Bliar, Just how do you sleep at night?

[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: Gary Astazu ]
Gary Astazu is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2001, 23:51
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Post

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......)
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2001, 02:13
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Brum
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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* ]
Paddington* is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2001, 02:56
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Cape Town South Africa
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink

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 ]
harrier is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2001, 04:16
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
kbf1 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2001, 14:50
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Post

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!!!!
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2001, 18:45
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unhappy

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.
Didntdoit is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2001, 21:29
  #52 (permalink)  
Roc
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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!
Roc is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2001, 01:34
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Post

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?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2001, 02:24
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
kbf1 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2001, 15:20
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Post

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......
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2001, 19:16
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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.
Didntdoit is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2001, 01:37
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Post

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
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2001, 16:55
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: North Oxfordshire, UK.
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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/
X-QUORK is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2001, 10:19
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,067
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
Post

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....
West Coast is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2001, 11:24
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

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
DESPERADO is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.