Firstly, these are not my words. Secondly, to all the Americans that visit this and read it, no offense is meant, it's just that so few Americans are even aware of these facts.

Like all Americans, on Tuesday, 9-11, I was shocked and horrified to watch the WTC Twin Towers attacked by hijacked planes and collapse, resulting in the deaths of perhaps up to 10,000 innocent people.

I had not been that shocked and horrified since January 16, 1991, when then President Bush attacked Baghdad, and the rest of Iraq and began killing 200,000 people during that 'war' (slaughter). This includes the infamous 'highway of death' in the last days of the slaughter when U.S. pilots literally shot in the back retreating Iraqi civilians and soldiers. I continue to be horrified by the sanctions on Iraq, which have resulted in the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, including over 500,000 children, about whom former Secretary of State Madeline Allbright has stated that their deaths 'are worth the cost'.

Over the course of my life I have been shocked and horrified by a variety of

U.S. governmental actions, such as the U.S. sponsored coup against democracy

in Guatemala in 1954 which resulted in the deaths of over 120,000 Guatemalan

peasants by U.S. installed dictatorships over the course of four decades.

Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the horror I felt when the U.S. overthrew the governments of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and helped to murder 3,000 people. And it reminded me of the shock I felt in 1973, when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Chile against the democratic government of Salvador Allende and helped to murder another 30,000 people, including U.S. citizens.

Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the shock and horror I felt in 1965 when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Indonesia that resulted in the murder of over 800,000 people, and the subsequent slaughter in 1975 of over 250,000 innocent people in East Timor by the Indonesian regime with the direct complicity of President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissenger.

I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt during the U.S. sponsored terrorist contra war (the World Court declared the U.S. government a war criminal in 1984 for the mining of the harbors) against Nicaragua in the 1980s which resulted in the deaths of over 30,000 innocent people (or as the

U.S. government used to call them before the term 'collateral damage' was invented--'soft targets').

I was reminded of being horrified by the U. S. war against the people of El Salvador in the 1980s, which resulted in the brutal deaths of over 80,000 people, or 'soft targets'.

I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt during the U.S. sponsored terror war against the peoples of southern Africa (especially Angola) that began in the 1970's and continues to this day and has resulted in the deaths

and mutilations of over 1,000,000. I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt as the U.S. invaded Panama over the Christmas season of 1989 and killed

over 8,000 in an attempt to capture George H. Bush's CIA partner, now turned

enemy, Manual Noriega.

I was reminded of the horror I felt when I learned about how the Shah of Iran was installed in a U.S. sponsored brutal coup that resulted in the deaths of over 70,000 Iranians from 1952-1979. And the continuing shock as I

learned that the Ayatollah Khomani, who overthrew the Shah in 1979, and who was the U.S. public enemy for decade of the 1980s, was also on the CIA payroll, while he was in exile in Paris in the 1970s.

I was reminded of the shock and horror that I felt as I learned about how the U.S. has 'manufactured consent' since 1948 for its support of Israel, to

the exclusion of virtually any rights for the Palestinians in their native lands resulting in ever worsening day-to-day conditions for the people of Palestine. I was shocked as I learned about the hundreds of towns and villages that were literally wiped off the face of the earth in the early days of Israeli colonization. I was horrified in 1982 as the villagers of Sabra and Shatila were massacred byIsraeli allies with direct Israeli complicity and direction. The untold thousands who died on that day match the scene of horror that we saw last Tuesday. But those scenes were not repeated over and over again on the national media to inflame the American public.

The events and images of last Tuesday have been appropriately compared to the horrific events and images of Lebanon in the 1980s with resulted in the deaths of tens of thousand of people, with no reference to the fact that the

country that inflicted the terror on Lebanon was Israel, with U.S. backing. I still continue to be shocked at how mainstream commentators refer to 'Israeli settlers' in the 'occupied territories' with no sense of irony as they report on who are the aggressors in the region.

Of course, the largest and most shocking war crime of the second half of the

20th century was the U.S. assault on Indochina from 1954-1975, especially Vietnam, where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually 'hands on' murdered in the 'Phoenix Program' (this is where

Oliver North got his start). Many U.S. Vietnam veterans were also victimized

by this war and had the best of intentions, but the policy makers themselves

knew the criminality of their actions and policies as revealed in their own words in 'The Pentagon Papers,' released by Daniel Ellsberg of the RAND Corporation.

In 1974 Ellsberg noted that our Presidents from Truman to Nixon continually lied to the U.S. public about the purpose and conduct of the war. He has stated that, 'It is a tribute to the American people that our leaders perceived that they had to lie to us, it is not a tribute to us that we were

so easily misled.'

I was continually shocked and horrified as the U.S. attacked and bombed with

impunity the nation of Libya in the 1980s, including killing the infant daughter of Khadafi. I was shocked as the U.S. bombed and invaded Grenada in

1983. I was horrified by U.S. military and CIA actions in Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina, and Yugoslavia. The deaths in these actions ran into the hundreds of thousands.

The above list is by no means complete or comprehensive. It is merely a list

that is easily accessible and not unknown, especially to the economic and intellectual elites. It has just been conveniently eliminated from the public discourse and public consciousness. And for the most part, the analysis that the U.S. actions have resulted in the deaths of primarily civilians (over 90%) is not unknown to these elites and policy makers. A conservative number for those who have been killed by U.S. terror and military action since World War II is 8,000,000 people. Repeat--8,000,000 people. This does not include the wounded, the imprisoned, the displaced, the refugees, etc. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated in 1967, during the Vietnam War, 'My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence.' Shocking and horrifying.

Nothing that I have written is meant to disparage or disrespect those who were victims and those who suffered death or the loss of a loved one during this week's events. It is not meant to 'justify' any action by those who bombed the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. It is meant to put it in a context. If we believe that the actions were those of 'madmen', they are 'madmen' who

are able to keep a secret for 2 years or more among over 100 people, as they

trained to execute a complex plan. While not the acts of madmen, they are apparently the acts of 'fanatics' who, depending on who they really are, can

find real grievances, but whose actions are illegitimate.

Osama Bin Laden at this point has been accused by the media and the government of being the mastermind of Tuesday's bombings. Given the government's track record on lying to the America people, that should not be

accepted as fact at this time. If indeed Bin Laden is the mastermind of this

action, he is responsible for the deaths of perhaps 10,000 people-a shocking

and horrible crime. Ed Herman in his book The Real Terror Network: Terrorism

in Fact and Propaganda does not justify any terrorism but points out that states often engage in 'wholesale' terror, while those whom governments define as 'terrorist' engage is 'retail' terrorism. While qualitatively the results are the same for the individual victims of terrorism, there is a clear quantitative difference. And as Herman and others point out, the seeds, the roots, of much of the 'retail' terror are in fact found in the 'wholesale' terror of states. Again this is not to justify, in any way, the actions of last Tuesday, but to put them in a context and suggest an explanation.

Perhaps most shocking and horrific, if indeed Bin Laden is the mastermind of

Tuesday's actions; he has clearly had significant training in logistics, armaments, and military training, etc. by competent and expert military personnel. And indeed he has. During the 1980s, he was recruited, trained and funded by the CIA in Afghanistan to fight against the Russians. As long as he visited his terror on Russians and his enemies in Afghanistan, he was 'our man' in that country.

The same is true of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who was a CIA asset in Iraq during the 1980s. Hussein could gas his own people, repress the population, and invade his neighbor (Iran) as long as he did it with U.S. approval. The same was true of Manuel Noriega of Panama, who was a contemporary and CIA partner of George H. Bush in the 1980s. Noriega's main crime for Bush, the father, was not that he dealt drugs (he did, but the U.S. and Bush knew this

before 1989), but that Noriega was no longer going to cooperate in the ongoing U.S. terrorist contra war against Nicaragua. This information is not

unknown or really controversial among elite policy makers. To repeat, this not to justify any of the actions of last Tuesday, but to put it in its horrifying context.

As shocking as the events of last Tuesday were, they are likely to generate even more horrific actions by the U.S. government that will add significantly to the 8,000,000 figure stated above. This response may well be qualitatively and quantitatively worst than the events of Tuesday. The New York Times headline of 9/14/01 states that, 'Bush And Top Aides Proclaim

Policy Of Ending States That Back Terror' as if that was a rationale, measured, or even sane option. States that have been identified for possible

elimination are 'a number of Asian and African countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and even Pakistan.' This is beyond shocking and horrific-it is just as potentially suicidal, homicidal, and more insane than the hijackers themselves.

Also, qualitatively, these actions will be even worse than the original bombers if one accepts the mainstream premise that those involved are 'madmen', 'religious fanatics', or a 'terrorist group.' If so, they are acting as either individuals or as a small group. The U.S. actions may continue the homicidal policies of a few thousand elites for the past 50 years, involving both political parties. The retail terror is that of desperate and sometime fanatical small groups and individuals who often have

legitimate grievances, but engage in individual criminal and illegitimate activities; the wholesale terror is that of 'rational' educated men where the pain, suffering, and deaths of millions of people are contemplated, planned, and too often, executed, for the purpose of furthering a nebulous concept called the 'national interest'. Space does not allow a full explanation of the elites Orwellian concept of the 'national interest', but it can be summarized as the protection and expansion of hegemony and an imperial empire.

The American public is being prepared for war while being fed a continuous stream of shocking and horrific repeated images of Tuesday's events and heartfelt stories from the survivors and the loved ones of those who lost family members. These stories are real and should not be diminished. In fact, those who lost family members can be considered a representative sample of humanity of the 8,000,000 who have been lost previously. If we multiply by 800-1000 times the amount of pain, angst, and anger being currently felt by the American public, we might begin to understand how much

of the rest of the world feels as they are continually victimized.

Some particularly poignant images are the heart wrenching public stories that we are seeing and hearing of family members with pictures and flyers searching for their loved ones. These images are virtually the same as those

of the 'Mothers of the Disappeared' who searched for their (primarily) adult

children in places such as Argentina, where over 11,000 were 'disappeared' in 1976-1982, again with U.S. approval. Just as the mothers of Argentina deserved our respect and compassion, so do the relatives of those who are searching for their relatives now. However we should not allow ourselves to be manipulated by the media and U.S. government into turning real grief and anger into a national policy of wholesale terror and genocide against innocent civilians in Asia and Africa. What we are seeing in military terms is called 'softening the target.' The target here is the American public and

we are being ideologically and emotionally prepared for the slaughter that may commence soon.

None of the previously identified Asian and African countries are democracies, which means that the people of these countries have virtually no impact on developing the policies of their governments, even if we assume

that these governments are complicit in Tuesday's actions. When one examines

the recent history of these countries, one will find that the American government had direct and indirect influences on creating the conditions for

the existence of some of these governments. This is especially true of the Taliban government of Afghanistan itself.

The New York Metropolitan Area has about 21,000,000 people or about 8 % of the U.S. population. Almost everyone in America knows someone who has been killed, injured or traumatized by the events of Tuesday. I know that I do. Many people are calling for 'revenge' or 'vengeance' and comments such as 'kill them all' have been circulated on the TV, radio, and email. A few more

potentially benign comments have called for 'justice.' This is only potentially benign since that term may be defined by people such as Bush and

Colin Powell. Powell is an unrepentant participant in the Vietnam War, the terrorist contra war against Nicaragua, and the Gulf war, at each level becoming more responsible for the planning and execution of the policies.

Those affected, all of us, must do everything in our power to prevent a wider war and even greater atrocity, do everything possible to stop the genocide if it starts, and hold those responsible for their potential war crimes during and after the war. If there is a great war in 2001 and it is not catastrophic (a real possibility), the crimes of that war will be revisited upon the U.S. over the next generation. That is not some kind of religious prophecy or threat, it is merely a straightforward political analysis. If indeed it is Bin Laden, the world must not deal only with him as an individual criminal, but eliminate the conditions that create the injustices and war crimes that will inevitably lead to more of these types of attacks in the future. The phrase 'No Justice, No Peace' is more than a slogan used in a march, it is an observable historical fact. It is time to end the horror.

In a few short pages it is impossible to delineate all of the events described over the past week or to give a comprehensive accounting of U.S. foreign policy. Below are a few resources for up to date news and some background reading, by Noam Chomsky, the noted analyst. The titles of the books explain their relevance for this topic.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Answers

Apocalypse Pow.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Hhmmm - thought provoking.

If ever the world needed "statesmanship" it surely does right now. Regrettably, I haven't heard much statemanship over the past week - merely cheap, sound-bite rhetoric and sabre-rattling.

I see no tangible signs of even a hint of 'introspection' coming from the US government that would indicate it is prepared to give any meaningful consideration of the underlying foreign policy "matters" that forment terrorism, and have done for decades. Tony Blair ritually sings from the same hymn sheet. Revenge it seems is the only item on the agenda.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Actually, the government has been softening the war talk a bit the last few days trying to get people used to the idea that we aren't going to blow any country off the planet, and this will be a very long process. Jr is due to speak to the country in front of a joint nation of Congress at 9pm tonight. Blair is over here as well today. I dont notice him being particularly hard line, other than needing to break down the terrorist organizations, which must be done. I think everyone is realizing this thing has to be handled very carefully.

There was an excellent show on BBC America and Discover channels last night on the history behind modern terrorism. It was very straightforward in showing America's involvement from the 70s onwards. Going back over the chain of events, it's possible to say this kind of attack was nearly inevitable. Something of the same scale had been planned, and foiled, in 1993. What will be interesting is to see what the US, and other countries, do in the future when conflicts arise. Hopefully ask more serious questions before blindly handing out arms and money to the enemy du jour.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Ciara, glad you read the piece. I was concerned that it would provoke some kind of negative response from you, and since I value your highly that would have mad me sad.

Cheers. I think I saw some of the show you mentioned last night, quite good.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Another piece that I think is worth reading.

An Afghan-American speaks

You can't bomb us back into the Stone Age. We're already there. But you can start a new world war, and that's exactly what Osama bin Laden wants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - By Tamim Ansary

Sept. 14, 2001 | I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on San Francisco's KGO Talk Radio, conceded today that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."

And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived in the United States for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.

I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters.

But the Taliban and bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats' nest of international thugs holed up in their country.

Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan -- a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.

We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and healthcare? Too late. Someone already did all that. New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans; they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban -- by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.

So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that, folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.

And guess what: That's bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the West. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose; that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong -- in the end the West would win, whatever that would mean -- but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours.

Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer Tamim Ansary is a writer in San Francisco, and the son of a former Afghani politician.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Syme... where did you get this? It is hard to believe 500,000 children could have been killed. I wonder where the validity of this comes from. Obviously if it were slanderous I'm sure a libel suit would have emerged. Also I sent it to a friend of mine and he says it's garbage... propaganda. I'd be interested to find out exactly where you got this. Email me if you wish...

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Sparxx.........emailed ye, done.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Isn't it amazing that we live in the Information Age, and yet we can never be certain of the voracity of the information that comes our way - is it simply more targeted propaganda, or just for once perhaps the unadulterated truth?

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Stone me, I divvent knaa. It was sent to me and I thought you lot would like to read it.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

ta Syme... emailed ye back!

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

syme, this is not a dig at you.

While what syme has posted may be the "truth" it is not "all the facts". Re the 500,000 children in Iraq; the figure may be correct, however how were the deaths caused?

Iraq has always since the sanctions were introduced the power to sell oil for food and medicine. If the govt uses the money raised to go back into their defence budget is it the fault of the sanctions or the govt?

It is an arguement put up by Saddam that these children are dying because of lack of food and medicine. He has the ability to use the funds from oil sales to buy both, but chooses not to, and to use the results against the continuing embargoes. Personally I am in favour of assassination, of him his family, their families and their pets. The same for bin Laden and all the families of the terrorists.

I think this will get the message across better than bombing cities. The Mafia and other criminal groups do this.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Nah, Syme, not offended. There are alot of good points, even if some of the numbers may be over the top. I don't really know about that. But the US are hardly saints in the world, as much as the gov't has tried to tell us these various little campaigns have been for good reasons. And that only when they bothered to tell us anything.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Agree with you re assassination, Gus. I was furious the night we were told the Gulf War was over, because Maddass was still walking the earth. There has been a myth(?) going around for years that it was against US law for our gov't to assassinate a foreign leader. Apparently it was only down to an Executive Order signed by each President since Gerald Ford. As such, it could be rescinded at any time. EO's do not need approval from Congress. However, there was never anything against assassinating prominent figures who were not heads of state. I'm hoping we use that power now and assassinate every last one of the fookers. Probably the best way to avoid excessive civilian casualties that would occur as the result of any kind of bombing.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

So Syme, I take it that America is the source of all evil in the world? Typical hard left-wing rhetoric reflecting a view of world history that most of us reject as being simplistic in the extreme. I found it terribly offensive and I just live here. Very disappointing.

Still, everybody is entitled to express their opinion. Thanks primarily to the Americans, that even applies to those who engage in the kind of bigotry and prejudice contained in your post.

Norm Chomsky is your noted analyst? - a man still in mourning over the death of Stalin and the fact that the Soviet Union lost the Cold War.

I've always enjoyed your football posts but your politics I think I can do without.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2001

Er Southpaw I think you may have misinterpreted Syme's post - he is not saying Noam Chomsky is a noted analyst, the writer of the article is saying that......... Oh and for the record I broadly disagree with everything that is in that article as it endevaours to link every atrocity with the US. Basically a case of US being damned if they intervene and damned if they dont. Though in a number of cases they had the backing of NATO and were not sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN? Having said all that is this really the forum for this type of discussion?!

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Lot's of very interesting points - personally I think the real message here is that the US has never really come to terms with the concept of cause and effect in their foreign policy. Because of it's geographic isolation (relatively speaking) the consequences of US foreign poicy have rarely been felt in the US directly until now. It's interesting to note the differences in approach between how the US has dealt with problems thousands of miles away (Korea, Vietnam, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan etc) and how Europe (with the US and UN) have handled the situation on their doorstep in former Yugoslovia.

Norman Mailer wrote recently that perhaps it's time for America to address the issue of why so many parts of the world hate the US. The answer, I would suggest, is plain for all to see - a heavy handed foreign policy over a period of 50 years has basically seen them impose their will on dozens of countries with scant disregard for anything other than American interests. More importantly, no attention is spent to future consequences - was it really so unpredictable that Saddam Hussein would eventually come into conflict with the West? The US armed, funded and supported him for years, and the reason he wasn't ousted in the Gulf War represents a staggeringly cynical display of realpolitik not seen since Britain ignored the German occupation of the Sudetenland. Leaving Saddam in Iraq was convenient because in the short term he remains easy for the West to control despite the havoc he may be wreaking in his own country. Furthermore, my understanding is that the problem is not that the Iraqi's can't afford to buy food, medical supplies etc (though they may indeed be broke as they are severely restricted in their ability to sell oil) it's that other countries are prevented by the sanctions from dealing with Iraq. In other words, US/UN are depriving a country of the ability to acquire the essentials of life as punishment to a dictator they armed & supported, and could have removed if they had the chance.

I could go on and on (in act I think I already have) but my boss is starting to wonder why I'm typing so animatedly. I'm certainly not justifying the WTC attacks, or suggesting in anyway that the victims deserved what they got, but as Syme points out in the grand scheme of things it's not out of the ordinary - only difference is that this time the awful body count is predominantly white Americans whose lives are valued infinitely higher in the West than non-white foreigners. There's always the hope that something good may come of this, such as the US (who frankly I think the world should treat as a 14 year old with a gun) reassessing their foreign policy, but with the cowboy in the hot seat that seems unlikely.

My guess? Afghanistan won't release Bin Laden (and that surely is their right in the absence of any evidence of his guilt if the US is to continue to take the moral high ground). The US will bomb Afghanistan, intending to get Bin Ladin but will cause massive civilian casualties (or "collateral damage as the cowardly euphymism goes). The Muslim world will rally around a flag of anti-Americanism in protest at this, and instead of a few extremists the West wil be faced with a massive campaign of terrorism. Muslims (and other minorities - apparently the Sikhs have been taking a bit of a pasting in the US) will become a persecuted group in the West. Pakistan, having assisted the US in striking against Bin Ladin, will be on the receiving end of the Taliban's Jihad. At the same time they'll face an influx of millions more refugees. Just what we need - an unstable nuclear power sandwiched between an unstable extremist government on one side, a hostile nuclear power on the other, with pressure being exerted on them by a superpower to act against their own interests....

Anyway, this is a football website - how do we think this will impact on Afghanistan's chances of qualifying for the World Cup???

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Seeing as bin Laden is their Striker, I think they will not qualify.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Aye - he's always dangerous, hits the arget regularly but FIFA are likely to take a hard line and he could be up for a long suspension....

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Watched a bit of a discussion on US foriegn plicy the other night, on Newcsnight I think.

The guy in the States suggested most countries viewed foriegn policy as a game of chess .... slow strategic build up, careful consideration, long end game, and maybe a draw in the end.

The US on the other hand viewed it as poker. You analysed your hand, made a judgement on the oppostion's hand, played accordingly, showed you cards, then picked up all the cards, shuffled the pack and started a completely new and independent game.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Perhaps last weeks events may make the US think who they jump into bed with. If you bed & dump so many partners, you're bound to upset theodd bunny-burner along the way.

US citizens may also think twice about donations to the IRA.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

I'd like to think they'll think twice about funding the IRA but the reality is they won't....they won't see that as the same thing...

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Can I just point out that assassination is murder.

And that the US govt has for the most part of its 200 yr history variably committed genocide, undermined democratically or popular governments (i.e. those with tacit consent of the people following a revolution) and forced complicity with its economic and foreign policy at the point of a sword across the globe.

They are not alone in this, and I'm not excusing or condoning the atrocities in the US. But there are reasons for what happened and failing to understand this or do something about it will just make the suffering continue.

ps - in the Gulf, the retreating line of Iraqis were on the now infamous 'Road to Basra' - one pilot describing the air assault as a 'turkey shoot' (see John Pilger).

pps - while I'm on, can I urge you all to question everything that is said and seen in the media over the coming weeks. Make your own minds up, but don't take what is presented as an objective truth. The greatest display of power is not to have to exercise that power at all, i.e. manufacturing consent.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

One of the key issues emerging in the present - very healthy - international debate is that of the burden of proof that Bin Liner was responsible for the recent acts of "assymetric warfare", to quote the americanism that terrorism has now been rechristened (!). I've heard it stated from Islamabad to NYC in recent days that the US needs to convince people of his guilt before they will accept military action, with the inevitable civilian casualties, as being justified.

On the BBC's Question Time programme last night I squirmed as the Labour Defence Minister, and the Torie's David Davies, both spouted the usual cr@p about Government's neither being required or able to make public the evidence they have regarding the terrorist crimes, but that they were both satisfied that it existed and was credible. I'm afraid our politicians simply don't get it.

Fortunately the lady Liberal Democrat on the panel jumped on both of these dinosaurs and explained to them that this form of old school politics will simply not prove acceptable. People around the world - and in particuar the Muslim world - MUST be convinced that any military action is justifiable and proportionate. For them to be able to assess this, they need to be presented with a credible case based on the available evidence - not necessarily all the evidence, and not necessarily betraying intelligence sources.

As the LibDem lady said the case must be proven in the Court of Public Opinion - and she was absolutely spot on. Our politicians must heed this warning.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

..The Court of Public Opinion? Where does that sit then? ;-)

Wholeheartedly agree with the principle. Less easy to actually see how it would be achieved without a 2 year trial or worse. The 'trial', is therefore being conducted on a diplomatic basis. I would also like to see it done on a religious basis, so that key religious leaders make there minds up. Either way, it'll never be a 'fair' trial as there won't be much of a defence. In this instance, it's got to be a pragmatic approach with as much consensus of opinion as possible..

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Southpaw, like I said these are not my words. I didn't even say I agree with them. It was sent to me and like I said I thought some on here would like to read it, a different perspective maybe. So please don't treat me so scornfully. I am not a politician, nor do I have any aspirations to hold lenghty debates on the nuances of the world. I read, I ponder, I forward. I even put a big disclaimer at the top!!!

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Well there does seem to be general agreement that the US and allies need to move very carefully in handling this situation. Evidence must be gathered. To get it, we need cooperation from all countries that would spurn global terrorism.

Then what?

There are people against assassination.
There are people against full scale military action

So what exactly is to be done??!

The terrorists don't give a hang who they murder in their quest to create mayhem. So how does anyone think traditonal forms of trial and justice are going to stop them? They ain't gonna be rehabilitated into fine, upstanding citizens. If they had a shred of conscience they wouldn't do the things they do. IMHO the sooner the world's gene pool is culled of them, the happier I'll be.

Never thought I'd see the day when I could sit through one of Jr's speeches without wanting to throw the tv out the window, but I managed it last night. Even found myself cheering his line equating terrorism with fascism, nazism, etc(I immediately ran to the window to see if the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse were riding by..but it was just someone driving past in a truck. whew!). It was a speech I never in a million years thought he was capable of delivering.

But at the end of it, I was left feeling more uneasy than I have since the days immediately after the attack. I know he couldn't outline specifically what was to be done, nor do I want to know until after the fact. Whatever is done will need as much secrecy as possible to catch these guys wherever they're hiding. But there was some very strong language that leads me to wonder if there is going to be some kind of strong military strike somewhere. That is something I could only support if I feel we are going after terrorist cells or government leaders supporting them. But I fear the US may still try to make a statement, as we've done so many times in the past to no more effect other than to piss more people off.

This is a situation where everyone needs to think outside the box (god, I hate that corporate-speak, but can't think of a better term). This is not a traditional enemy.

Anyone know if I can claim refugee status in the UK? I want outta here! :-|

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

You're probably safer there than here Ciara :))

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

I saw the same speeech (hard to avoid it really) I am with you on the opinion I have of Jr, however last night I was moved by his delivery and the message he put across. Great speech, how many times did he get a standing ovation, it was like the whole audience was on a string up, down, up, down, up, down. Who is that fireman? he opened the stock market on monday he was there last night?

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Dr Bill is missing on this. Remember his posting about the way he felt and that he was ashamed? What now? (Not a direct question to you Dr Bill, just rhetorical for all of us)

Yes Bobby, assassination is murder, however, make no mistake, I would pull the trigger.

That may make some of you not wish to talk to me anymore. I do not agree with the senseless violence that goes on, the same as I would give my life in a situation to save someone. We must stop these acts, if it takes some extra ordinary things to do it then so be it. It is not an answer to all problems. I think it is for this one.

I have seen some really stupid things going around at the moment like, bomb Afghanistan with food instead of bombs etc, well DUHHHH what would that do? The Taliban would announce to all their people that they were responsible for it, gaining more support. It is like trying to end world poverty, the money goes to Third world countries to be used by the Governments to kill their opposition.

If the World Bank says that the money will be given if the Governments meet certain criteria, it is straight to the World Court because these organisations are trying to interfere with the elected Govt, no matter how bad or corrupt they are. Same as just getting rid of them with violence. Not acceptable to the world in general.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Gav, I'm within 40miles of DC, so don't think I'm any safer here than anywhere else. But if I'm gonna die, I want to at least die someplace where I feel at 'home'. ;-))

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday rejected requests from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to provide proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the deadly Sept. 11 attacks, saying there would be no negotiations.

Asked to respond to Afghanistan's vow not to hand over the Saudi-born militant without such evidence, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said: "The president last night made his conditions clear and he said there would be no discussions and no negotiations."

I simply don't understand this position. If credible evidence exists tying Bin Liner to the attacks, then why not make it selectively available? That is not negotiating - it is merely establishing the credibility and validity of your position. Otherwise, the suspicion prevails that there is indeed no such evidence.

Public opinion in the moderate Muslim states - never mind the NATO countries - will not be satisfied by such an arrogant approach, and their continued support will inevitably evaporate at the very first signs of what they will not unreasonably regard as lynch-mob action.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

The agony continues:

LOS ANGELES, Sept 21 (Reuters) - Major Hollywood studios tightened security on Friday - canceling tours and setting up metal detectors and barriers - after the FBI warned they could be the "target of a terrorist bombing."

FBI spokesman John McLaughlin said the Agency met with the Heads of major studios on Thursday hours after receiving an "uncorroborated yet credible" threat against the filmmakers.

The studios immediately took several steps to beef up security, shutting entrances to their lots, ordering additional barricades and metal detectors set up and canceling some studio tours. Warner Bros. suspended all live audiences for the taping of its TV shows during the next two weeks, media reports said.

McLaughlin declined to discuss the source of the threat but said FBI agents met the heads of the studios and their security managers within hours of receiving it. "The uncorroborated threat states that a film studio in California could be the target of a terrorist bombing attack in retaliation for any bombing attacks by the United States in Afghanistan. The FBI is working closely with the studios regarding this matter."

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

I don't think there can be any half measures here. Without some kind of police force that doesn't have to have regard for national boundaries, I think the Americans are forced to take an uncompromising stance.

For me, this is in the same vein as Kruschev and the Cuban missiles. If Kennedy had had to wait for universal acceptance of his stance, we probably wouldn't be here to discuss the matter.

Personally, I hope they blow the bastard away under any pretext, because even if he wasn't involved in the towers, there are enough other atrocities in which he has been involved that the sooner he ceases to exist, the better.

It's a bit like knowing in advance that hitler would wipe out six million jews and waiting until he'd done it before doing something.

The only result of these Afghan delaying tactics will be to lose the impetus and we'll chicken out and end up with another sh1tty compromise as happened after the gulf war.

We can philosophise till the cows come home, but in the end, something has to be done that will prevent dustbin ever being able to organise another atrocity. That means demonstrating to his sympathisers that we've had enough, so he has to die as far as I'm concerned, and if that means some of them going with him, I have absolutely no qualms of conscience whatever about that.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Listening to the radio, it seems like there was a huge rally in pakistan against supporting the american/world effort. So it looks like afgahistan and pakistan v. the rest of the world.......shouldn't take too long. Pit Bill I think your sentiments are spot, time to act and act decisivley and swiftly.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Charles Colson, one of Nixon's aides, has said in a recent interview that from a Christian perspective, any response should meet St Augustines criteria for a "just war":

"Augustine’s formulation was that it has to be, obviously, a just cause; it has to be a last resort, basically the only thing you can do; and it holds that the evil you will cause by the attack is less than the evil being righted — you can’t create more evil. There’s got to be a good chance of success, and, most importantly, civilian casualties have got to be limited: You cannot target civilians."

How could an American response be formulated to meet these requirments? Answers on a postcard to G Bush Jr.

If you want to read the rest of Colson's interview its at

http://www.breakpoint.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID2228|CHI D100546|CIID830078,00.html

You'll have to copy and paste I'm afraid - I don't do clever things.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Agree there can and should be no negotiation, but if we have conclusive evidence linking BinLadin to this attack, I also fail to see what it's going to hurt showing it to the Taliban. I say show it to them and give em 24hrs to start meeting our demands, otherwise we start hitting the Taliban too. Pretty simple on that front. At least no one can accuse the US of not being fair. ;-)

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

Augustine must be writheing in his grave cos as far as I can tell, there never has been a war ever, that fulfilled even half of those conditions.

Idealists are okay as long as they don't expect the real world to live by their ideals. There's more chance of ending war altogether than to engage in war under those conditions.

All you can hope for is to aim for lily white or jet black, but don't get too upset when you have to settle for some shade of grey.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2001

"I hope they blow the bastard away under any pretext......."

"We can philosophise till the cows come home, but in the end, something has to be done that will prevent dustbin ever being able to organise another atrocity".

So, precisely how will you assess the 'success' of this exercise, Pit Bill?

Would you still be comfortable if the end result of your "uncompromising stance" was simply the ultimate replacement of Bin Liner with another 1,000 or even 10,000 replicas?

That's the ultimate challenge and my main point - imo this has to be done in a way that minimises insofar as possible the adverse reaction among moderate Muslims.

For that to happen, a great many people within what is a very fragile coalition need to be convinced by providing summary evidence in 'The Court of Public Opinion' that Bin Liner and his cohorts are indeed responsible for this and other atrocities.

As a critical second front, there needs to be massive pressure applied to Israel to come to an accomodation with the Palestinians that may not represent their ideal. THIS is the ultimate breeding ground for most of this muslim-backed terrorism - and it must be fixed, with an appropriate sense of urgency.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

You've hit the nail right on the head, Clarky. I deliberately am not worrying about that aspect. I think the problem is so immensely complicated, that a universally acceptible compromise would take years to formulate, if one even exists. You need look no further than Ireland

In the meantime, binlid and his cronies go about their business, so I think we've reached the point where actions will speak much louder than words.

After all, does anybody really believe that binlid wasn't behind the tower atrocity ?

I don't mean to trivialise it, but to me it's like a sort of glorified bullying, and nearly always, as soon as a victim of bullying stands up to the bully, even to the extent of just losing his/her rag and lashing out, the bullying stops. Sometimes doesn't even matter that the victim gets a good thumping, it's having a go that does the trick. And the bully's mates generally toe the line as well.

Maybe I'm vastly over simplifying it, but I don't have the political intellect to come up with a more apt analogy.

I'd like nothing more than for some super statesman or whatever, to come on the scene and get the bliddy lot of them round a table to decide what shade of grey to go for.

Again,though, these loonies aren't going to 'cease trading' while the talk goes on. If binlid no longer exists, it's one less to worry about.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

"binlid". LOL, PB...good one!! :-)

Clarky, you make a good point that is getting a little lost amongst the calls for Binlid's blood. Finding some kind of peaceful compromise in Israel. I admit to not knowing a whole lot about that issue, but it has been cited by many as a source of these radical's hatred of the US and other countries friendly to Israel. It is another front in this 'war' that must be addressed. Not so sure finding a solution will be any easier than NI, sadly. But it needs to become a priority. Perhaps as high as tracking down and wiping out the various terrorist cells. It's going to take a long time, no matter what is done. Simple fact is, something has to be done. I think the school bully analogy is a good one, PB. Except these school bullies don't look like getting bored and going back to their caves to grow their beards.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

Ciara
The 'binlid' thingy wasn't mine originally, I think I saw it on another posting on here, and even though I'm well aware that it might be a bit juvenile using that in place of his name, I just think it's a slight demonstration of the absolute and utter contempt and loathing I feel for the disgusting apology for a human being, and it most certainly doesn't merit a capitalised initial letter.

For all the good that'll do in trying to solve the problem.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

LOL, true, but it does make you feel a bit better. Sometimes being a bit childish isn't a bad thing. ;-)

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

Childish ? I've cornered the market in 'childish'. Ask my darling wife. :-))

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2001

I'd avoided this thread but am now sucked in I guess. Syme, I'm afraid that a lot of the leftist literature concerning Foreign policy and the US comes across extremely badly, I read half the initial article and knew Chomsky was in there. In the wild and wacky world of International Relations degrees Chomsky is respected but the generalisations are huge and the much is skewed to suck in people trying to get a grasp of a situation and is as bad as main stream media in a mirrored way. I can see your heart in in the right area but a plea to one and all is to treat both the leftist and established media as equally suspiscious, neither will give you a complete picture, just hope that wise heads prevail.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Sadly we are all somewhat culpable for encouraging the attacks on the USA. It's our mainstream liberalism and generations of pacifism that led to it.

The IRA launched their most comprehensive and sustained bombing campaign ever on mainland Britain and our response was to rush for the negotiating table and offer as many compromises as anyone was prepared to accept. Prisons disgorged murderous sh*ts onto the street who should never have seen the light of day again. All to salve our consciences that somehow they would become law-abiding, right-minded people if they had a devolved government.

Hardly surprisingly only the most desperate to believe in fairy tales and a Utopian future still consider there to be a ceasefire in the provinces - [how many times did news readers tell us in hushed tones that the ceasefire(sic) was "under threat" after the recent bombing/shooting/kneecapping?] - and suddenly we have a new demon in Northern Ireland in the form of "The Real IRA". How can you blame them for carrying on shooting, murdering, blowing people into bits and spreading fear and loathing when they are simply the group of people who haven't had all their demands met? They've been given a great lesson in how to get your way: attack the liberal masses and they will pressure their governments into making the nasty people go away. This isn't a case of normal people with a legitimate grievance being somehow tipped over the edge, it's the actions of inveterate murderers who can cheapen human life to a legitimate target if they feel that the end justifies the mean. We owe it to ourselves to make the end one of blood and terror for the perpetrators, they chose the weapons when they called us out.

It's a problem for us across the board. Tensions on housing estates? Attack the police and fire services - don't worry about taking responsibility for your actions, the media will be saturated with hand-wringing liberals urging us to "understand" rather than punish. These being the same points of view that brought in changes to education which see classrooms turn into battle grounds with kids who have been raised to hold any form of authority in utter contempt and have this point of view enforced by the fact that the harshest punishment they can have inflicted on them is to excluded from the very place they don't want to be.

Well I say f*ck the lot of them. It's about time people started standing up for the police officers getting petrol bombed for having the temerity to protect private property and the ordinary kids getting short-changed in the classroom by having their devolopment retarded so that teacher can control the zoo animals instead of teach. We have been burdened with such a weight of collective guilt that we are afraid of children. We should know better than this. The fact that the world consists entirely of grey areas shouldn't prevent you from following a path where your intentions are good.

Seems to me that most of the people prepared to act these days are those who have nothing but self-interest at heart whilst good people do nothing in case they inadvertently hurt somebody else. Trust me, somebody setting a bomb to go off in a shopping centre is not trying to gain self-government for his interest-group, he is trying to kill people. The only thing that would legitimize his actions would be if our reaction to the horror was to grant his interest-group's wishes in order to make him stop bombing us. If our reaction was to kill him and seek reparations from his interest-group for any loss of life or damage caused then the end no longer justifies the means. Take away the reward and the actions will cease.

Society has to be about opting-in. If you cannot behave in an acceptable and civilised manner then you need to be excluded from society, not pandered to. If this makes me sound like a fascist then so be it.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Even fell out with my daughter over the issue yesterday, had to resort to the Taliban treatment of their women to sway the argument. I was not going to get involved in this debate , until I read Pit Bill`s and Softies posts , like myself I will keep it simple, no quotes , my own opinion. I do not trust the rag heads , from the age of 23 when they stoned me in Libya I have felt uncomfortable in their prescence , has anyone on here having left the friendly enclave of their all inclusive Arab holiday resort felt really comfortable down the local casbah? As for our own countries involvement,some are a tad concerned , hell`s sake we gotta support the States, if they had not joined in (albeit late) in the 40`s and ecomically assisting the UK we would have been watching 11 Didi Hamiens at SJP.

Forget saturation strikes, (In Afghan it aint going to happen),a previous poster quoting a ex Afghan journo has spelt out the facts. I have read most of Sandy Gall`s stuff about the country ,linking that with a five minute interview with a unknown special forces guy from Brussels their appears only one way to combat the problem and thats from the inside, drawback to this is that in the past the CIA have a bad track record in this field, my feeling is that they attempt to be too smart. Difference this time is the coalition , more wiser heads, more local nous, like the soldier stated , put our hat in the ring with the 30,000 Northern Alliance, (not the football league), right people with them who can understand and work with them and most importantly can turn a blind eye at times to some of their antics/ customs!, this will be accepted by the sceptics in the West, the real Afghans now fleeing and hopefully the majority of the Muslim World. The build up of hardware is a must, cannot be caught with our pants down, gotta be able to react if Sad Arse takes a mood swing or if the Pakistanis rebel against their lot and some dangerous stuff falls into the hands of the loonies. The planners have the most difficult job imaginable, personally I do not think they can plan too far in advance, the goal posts will change continually, its like handing over a new house, get the punch list completed, sign a form of agreement, move onto the next one till the estate is completed, once done the tenants will then form their own community councils and iron out any problems that occurr , until you get the neighbour from hell, in this case Bin Laden, and then it becomes a problem for a greater authority, forget the past, this is now, lets deal with it , not for my sake but for the future of my grandchildren.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Very difficult topic to discuss openly and sensibly, Buff - personal opinions tend to be strong and firm.

I don't get a sense that many are arguing against supporting the US, or that action against the terrorist organisations isn't necessary. It seems to me that the main variable is "how" to go about doing so in a way that alienates as few moderates as possible. I fear that if this is mishandled there is every possibility that your grandchildren will be facing an even bigger problem than we are today.

From my perspective, The Coalition must attempt to retain the moral high ground insofar as it is able. This requires - again imo - the presentation of a summary of the evidence as it exists that those being targeted are indeed legitimate targets, free from hidden agendas.

This is not suggesting entering into negotiation with anyone, simply presenting the case for action to the countless millions who are sceptical and concerned. Neither is it proposing undue delay to the inevitable military 'proceedings' - this could be accomplished within days - assuming, of course, the evidence really does exist.

There is a good article in the Sunday Times today that you may be interested in reading about the preparations for the probably invasion of Afghanistan. This paper suggests that while preparations for military action against Afghanistan are being finalised, there are growing suggestions that Bin Liner has probably already left that country - such is the apparent lack of real local intelligence that we could engage in massive hostilities against a country who has already secured the main target's escape.

Worryingly, BBC News are reporting that the Taliban have mobilised 100,000 men in anticipation of calling their Jihad against the US and it's Allies if they are invaded - 100,000 men who will inevitably be poorly trained, lightly armed and otherwise ill-prepared to wage war against a highly trained and equipped professional army - even if they are highly motivated. As happened in Iraq at the conclusion of Desert Storm, this army would inevitably suffer massive casualties in any hostilities - effectively laying the foundations for the cycle of violence to begin all over again.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

I think we're probably all coming from the same place. I can fully appreciate the point of view and reasoning of those who want us to make haste slowly, and those with a point of view similar to mine.

My main worry is that the compromise arrived at will leave us, discounting the politicians who've engineered it, feeling cheated - half of the problems have been half solved.

My approach never was to go in with all guns blazing, but just to make sure we act sooner rather than later, taking into account as much as can be definitely proved.

The longer we wait, the muddier the water gets, and we'll end up having to settle for the sort of half baked compromise which always seems to be the result of trying to account for every possible eventuality.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

"The IRA launched their most comprehensive and sustained bombing campaign ever on mainland Britain and our response was to rush for the negotiating table and offer as many compromises as anyone was prepared to accept. Prisons disgorged murderous sh*ts onto the street who should never have seen the light of day again. All to salve our consciences that somehow they would become law-abiding, right-minded people if they had a devolved government. "

Softie, NO !!!

The move to the conference table was despite the bombings. Maggie hated the Irish with a vengance after Airey Neave and then Brighton. She approved a shoot to kill policy, she allowed an elected MP to starve himself to death, you cannot say that the government rushed to the negotiating table.

The Britsh government was party to the 'state' terrorism that the Loyalists had imposed on the catholics in the north. No vote, no access to housing, the catholics were the niggers of the area.

Going back to an earlier comment about states acting out terrorism the conflict in Northern Ireland was to a great extent the fall out form poor foriegn policy by London. They may have meant well but they got it wrong.

Something that was amazing when Sinn Fein stopped their war on the British Army was that no one had the faintest idea what republicans actually wanted. Sinn Fein were so untouchable that no one had spoken to them in a generation and had no idea where any negotiations should begin. (The ceasefire in Northern Ireland is a ceasefire. The army and police don't get attacked as they did ten years ago. Any violence now is more comparable to that you'd find in any big city. Viv Graham would have fitted in perfectly in East Belfast)

Yes it is abhorrant to see the likes of Michael Stone walking out of prison, and being so lauded by his friends and supporters. If his release means that the peace process can be moved forward then great, celbrate the fact. It would seem that what is being suggested for Bin Laden and Afghanistan would be like putting all the terrorists bak into the H blocks, with their leaders and just nuking the place. All the problems would have gone in straight away.

The worst chain of events I ever saw unfold was when the SAS took out the IRA people in Gibraltar. This is just what is being suggested now for Bin Laden. Gibraltar was 4 dead Irish, they are taken back to West Belfast and given heroes funeral by the people of the Falls. At the funeral the Army stay out of the way as it is clearly a flash situation. Michael Stone walks fomr the West Link motorway and up to the Anderston cemetry with machine gun in one hand and grenades in the other. He knew it was okay to kill re4publican terrorits as he'd seen the British government do it only days ealrier in Gibraltar. Stone lobs grenades and shoots at random. He kills a few before being overpowered. A Loyalist hero is born. Republicans hyopcritcally demand to know where the army/police were. Fear of army/state cannot be higher in West Belfast. Saturday afternoon it is the funerals of the people killed by Stone. The Falls Road is packed, the army/police petrified to be too close or to be too far away. Suddenly a car appears at speed coming up the Falls Road. The crowd surge forward, black cabs block it off. Fear/panic surges through the crowd. The initial thought is that it is more Loyalist killers. The crowd swarms around the car, drags the occupants out. The occupants have English accents, they're soldiers 'lost' on the Falls Road, off duty. They are killed by the frenzied mob.

What did this all achieve ? At what point did any one do anything they didn't believe was right. The guys in the car were killed by people who believed it was self protection. Michael Stone to the lead from the leaders of his country who had sanctioned the killing of catholic/republicans. The army did what they were ordered to do to reduce the risk to others. The terrorits killed in Gibraltar were inspired by their leaders who played on Bloody Sunday.

Maybe, if way back when, someone had tried to help right the wrongs against the catholics in Ireland things may have stopped earlier, or we'd at least be closer to resolving it.

As far as horrible kids in school goes, what do you do with them ? Chuck them all into the west end of Newcastle maybe, or into Sighthill in Glasgow. Stick all the bad kids together, stick all the good kids together. In fact why bother trying to educate the bad kids at all, it's just a waste of teaching, and financial, resources.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

I'm delighted by the following Press Release regarding the intended public presentation of evidence of Bin Liner's cohorts involvement in the atrocities. This is most definitely a step in the right direction, and indicates a great deal more diplomatic thought and care is going into the preparations than I have to date feared:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will soon release evidence linking Saudi-born militant Osama Bin Laden to the attacks on New York and Washington, Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Sunday.

Powell's task in the campaign is to mobilize international support for the US, and convince Muslim countries that Muslims are not the target of U.S. revenge.

The governments of most Muslim countries have said they oppose terrorism, but want to see the evidence that Bin Laden was indeed behind the attacks on Sept 11.

Powell told the NBC's 'Meet the Press' program, "We are hard at work bringing all the information together -- intelligence information, law enforcement information. I think in the near future, we will be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack".

Other U.S. officials have been evasive on whether the United States would release detailed evidence against Bin Laden.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

Macbeth

Listen!

“The move to the conference table was despite the bombings. Maggie hated the Irish with a vengance after Airey Neave and then Brighton. She approved a shoot to kill policy, she allowed an elected MP to starve himself to death, you cannot say that the government rushed to the negotiating table. “

You are quite right, I didn’t say Maggie rushed to the negotiating table, I said that we did this after their most sustained mainland bombing campaign. Nothing to do with Maggie and her 1984 Brighton bomb which was aimed at a legitimate target since they were the governing party in Britain and hence responsible for Irish Affairs at the time. I was talking about this little sequence:

22 September 1989 Deal bomb
7 February 1991 Downing Street mortared
20 March 1993 Warrington bomb
24 April 1993 Bishopsgate bomb
15 December 1993 Downing Street Declaration
10 March 1994 Heathrow Bombing
31 August 1994 IRA Declare Ceasefire
11 November 1995 Sinn Fein announce that Cease fire under threat because four men were arrested with a 1400 pound bomb in a van
9 February 1996 IRA ended cease fire and blew up Canary Wharf
15 February 1996 second car bomb defused in central London
18 February 1996 bomb on London bus kills 1 and injures 8
15 June 1996 Manchester bombed
5 April 1997 Grand National coded bomb warnings
7 April 1997 London Underground coded bomb warnings
19 April 1997 minor damage from explosions on rail lines brought rail network to a standstill
22 April 1997 Airports cleared after coded bomb threats
20 July 1997 IRA Declare ceasefire
10 April 1998 Good Friday Agreement

15 August 1998 Real IRA murder 29 at Omagh

Really brutal weren’t we? Fought a tough fight under Major and Blair, really showed them who was boss and how we would never give way to terrorism.

“(The ceasefire in Northern Ireland is a ceasefire. The army and police don't get attacked as they did ten years ago. Any violence now is more comparable to that you'd find in any big city. Viv Graham would have fitted in perfectly in East Belfast) “

Precisely my point, the target has moved from security forces to civilians: it gets results. See above for confirmation, I’m sure they do.

The idea is that terrorists of all persuasion are neutralised, so there won’t be a Michael Stone left wandering about. You aren’t suggesting he had support from the British Government for his murderous acts are you? I’m sure “shoot to kill” will be a part of that task and, quite frankly, I won’t lose any sleep since these f**kers don’t set their bombs on stun.

“As far as horrible kids in school goes, what do you do with them ? Chuck them all into the west end of Newcastle maybe, or into Sighthill in Glasgow. Stick all the bad kids together, stick all the good kids together. In fact why bother trying to educate the bad kids at all, it's just a waste of teaching, and financial, resources. “

You certainly don’t bugger up everyone’s education because some people haven’t learnt to behave in a civilized manner. You might even think about taking this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to mould the entire nation’s behaviour into an agreed code of practice where you learn about expectations of other people instead of having it demonstrated that the person who is the most selfish gets the most attention. That’s impossible in cases where someone’s idea of discipline is doing what you want until Fatha twats you with a bottle and you have to renegotiate the idea of corporal punishment. What good comes out of indulging horrible kids? Do the companies you’ve worked for all hold up their progress so that their less organised competitors don’t get left behind? If employees behaved in a really anti-social manner did you get everyone else to follow suit so that they didn’t feel singled out? Of course you didn’t. Inclusion of everyone shouldn’t involve lowering standards for all, and if it takes a two-tier system to keep the majority improving then take that option. Don’t perservere with a system that fails.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2001

The cynic in me finds it difficult not to see 'mobilize international support' as a euphemism for 'make sure the blame is shared so we don't have to bear the brunt of the aftermath'.

It's taken years of whatever the sins are that the Americans are supposed to have committed against the Arabs, (and I'm not saying they haven't), so I'd imagine convincing the Muslims that they aren't the target of U.S. revenge would take an equivalent amount of time ie years rather than weeks.

They're hardly likely to just take 'believe us chaps, you aren't who we're after' at face value. And even having convinced them initially, once the bullets start flying, the Muslims aren't going to believe a word of any 'accidental' killings as not being deliberate or acceptible. Presenting the proof that Bin Laden is guilty could also be a nest of vipers.

How will the evidence be presented ? If it's merely some sort of document which lists references to other documents and sources, I don't think it would get off the ground.

Would copies be sent to all interested parties ?

Would representatives of the Muslim world be selected on whose word the doubters would be committed to rely ?

And all the while attempts are being made to solve these incidental problems, the momentum is dying away, and the guilty parties are covering their tracks, so that if we're not careful, binlid will be as difficult to pin down as saddam.

What I'm really saying I suppose is, will all of this cautionary effort be worth the bother ? Might not we be better off erring on the side of bravado rather than caution ?

I know, there probably won't be any second chances, but the whole thing could end going pear shaped regardless of how careful we try to be.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

"What I'm really saying I suppose is, will all of this cautionary effort be worth the bother ? Might not we be better off erring on the side of bravado rather than caution ?"

i)Absolutely.

ii)Absolutely not.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Caught between the proverbial rock and hard place, basically.

For all the optimism that we're going to try statesmanship to bring the rest of the world on board, I've heard rumblings this morning that some folks in Congress think we shouldn't overthrow the Taliban as there could be something worse to come.

That's why maddaS is still around. :-/

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Clarky
I wish I had your faith in the skills of the people who're going to have to put this diplomacy into action. Even so, having taken the stance I have, I'll be over the moon if I turn out to be absolutely and completely wrong.

Somehow, though, I don't think anybody will come out of this feeling other than, at best, very frustrated. Past history doesn't encourage me to feel that this time it'll be any different.

As well, up to now, as far as I know, nobody's even considered, or at least mentioned out loud, the possible effects whatever is decided could have on the interests of US big business and the multi-nationals.

When they start chucking their weight about, it wouldn't surprise me if you won't be able to move for compromises. The longer the diplomacy goes on, I think the more likely it will be that big business will shove its oar in.

The trouble is, the big business considerations will never see the light of day until the records, if there ever even are any, cease to be state secrets, and the outcome, more than likely, will look only as if we chickened out of going the whole hog.

Or am I being cynical to the point of paranoia ?

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

PB,

I suspect the reason there has been no military action to date, has less to do with diplomacy, or even procrastination, than logistical planning and the identification of the targets.

You need the means to launch the required operation, you need a plan, and you need a clearly defined target. I'm sure all of these matters are being vigorously progressed.

In the intervening period the time needs to be used to maximise the diplomatic effort to ensure as much support as possible is garnered for the action being considered.

The fact that it has been stated that these efforts will be enhanced by providing the basis of evidence against those being targeted is music to my ears. However effectively this is carried out, there is now at least a chance that some people/States will be brought to accept that the ultimate action is not after all to be an indiscriminate act of revenge by the US. If it is only 50% effective, that imo is infinitely better than doing nothing in this regard, and for the Allies being seen to act with supreme arrogance, and disregard for what could well be far-reaching diplomatic consequences.

With regard to the skill of the people undertaking the diplomacy, and the trust we must place in them - the reality is that we have no choice in this - any more than we have over the people who are deciding who gets obliterated, and the care and wisdom that is used in making those decisions. Wing and a prayer mate, at best.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001

Clarky
I'm quite impressed with the 'stop the cash' approach that seems to be the opening gambit. But, not knowing when to leave well enough alone, it strikes me that if they can manage it with binlid's funds, which I wouldn't have thought were 'eggs all in the same basket', why can't they hammer the drug barons in a similar way ? Away from the point maybe, but made me wonder.

The three requirements you mention I would have thought were the easiest bits of the operation to achieve, although the clearly defined target could cause most problems. It's okay knowing exactly who you're after, but you have no chance if the target can't be pinpointed, and I reckon that'll be the crux of this operation.

Afghanistan I wouldn't have thought to be the easiest of locations for acquiring timely information, so keeping track of where the target is could be a nightmare.

It's encourageing though, that the rebels in the NE are just waiting for the word (provided they can be kept on a short leash), and that some of the Russian mini states bordering Afghanistan aren't going to put any obstacles in the way.

All a lot more encouraging than I would have expected. I hope it'll be as encouraging when the rhetoric stops.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2001