The war against terrorism is a fraud. After three weeks' bombing, not a single terrorist implicated in the attacks on America has been caught or killed in Afghanistan.

Instead, one of the poorest, most stricken nations has been terrorised by the most powerful - to the point where American pilots have run out of dubious "military" targets and are now destroying mud houses, a hospital, Red Cross warehouses, lorries carrying refugees.

Unlike the relentless pictures from New York, we are seeing almost nothing of this. Tony Blair has yet to tell us what the violent death of children - seven in one family - has to do with Osama bin Laden.

And why are cluster bombs being used? The British public should know about these bombs, which the RAF also uses. They spray hundreds of bomblets that have only one purpose; to kill and maim people. Those that do not explode lie on the ground like landmines, waiting for people to step on them.

If ever a weapon was designed specifically for acts of terrorism, this is it. I have seen the victims of American cluster weapons in other countries, such as the Laotian toddler who picked one up and had her right leg and face blown off. Be assured this is now happening in Afghanistan, in your name.

None of those directly involved in the September 11 atrocity was Afghani. Most were Saudis, who apparently did their planning and training in Germany and the United States.

The camps which the Taliban allowed bin Laden to use were emptied weeks ago. Moreover, the Taliban itself is a creation of the Americans and the British. In the 1980s, the tribal army that produced them was funded by the CIA and trained by the SAS to fight the Russians.

The hypocrisy does not stop there. When the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, Washington said nothing. Why? Because Taliban leaders were soon on their way to Houston, Texas, to be entertained by executives of the oil company, Unocal.

With secret US government approval, the company offered them a generous cut of the profits of the oil and gas pumped through a pipeline that the Americans wanted to build from Soviet central Asia through Afghanistan.

A US diplomat said: "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did." He explained that Afghanistan would become an American oil colony, there would be huge profits for the West, no democracy and the legal persecution of women. "We can live with that," he said.

Although the deal fell through, it remains an urgent priority of the administration of George W. Bush, which is steeped in the oil industry. Bush's concealed agenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin, the greatest source of untapped fossil fuel on earth and enough, according to one estimate, to meet America's voracious energy needs for a generation. Only if the pipeline runs through Afghanistan can the Americans hope to control it.

So, not surprisingly, US Secretary of State Colin Powell is now referring to "moderate" Taliban, who will join an American-sponsored "loose federation" to run Afghanistan. The "war on terrorism" is a cover for this: a means of achieving American strategic aims that lie behind the flag-waving facade of great power.

The Royal Marines, who will do the real dirty work, will be little more than mercenaries for Washington's imperial ambitions, not to mention the extraordinary pretensions of Blair himself. Having made Britain a target for terrorism with his bellicose "shoulder to shoulder" with Bush nonsense, he is now prepared to send troops to a battlefield where the goals are so uncertain that even the Chief of the Defence Staff says the conflict "could last 50 years".

The irresponsibility of this is breathtaking; the pressure on Pakistan alone could ignite an unprecedented crisis across the Indian sub-continent. Having reported many wars, I am always struck by the absurdity of effete politicians eager to wave farewell to young soldiers, but who themselves would not say boo to a Taliban goose.

In the days of gunboats, our imperial leaders covered their violence in the "morality" of their actions. Blair is no different. Like them, his selective moralising omits the most basic truth. Nothing justified the killing of innocent people in America on September 11, and nothing justifies the killing of innocent people anywhere else.

By killing innocents in Afghanistan, Blair and Bush stoop to the level of the criminal outrage in New York. Once you cluster bomb, "mistakes" and "blunders" are a pretence. Murder is murder, regardless of whether you crash a plane into a building or order and collude with it from the Oval Office and Downing Street.

GRIEF: A father weeps over his dead son after the bombs blunder in Kabul

If Blair was really opposed to all forms of terrorism, he would get Britain out of the arms trade. On the day of the twin towers attack, an "arms fair", selling weapons of terror (like cluster bombs and missiles) to assorted tyrants and human rights abusers, opened in London's Docklands with the full backing of the Blair government.

Britain's biggest arms customer is the medieval Saudi regime, which beheads heretics and spawned the religious fanaticism of the Taliban.

If he really wanted to demonstrate "the moral fibre of Britain", Blair would do everything in his power to lift the threat of violence in those parts of the world where there is great and justifiable grievance and anger.

He would do more than make gestures; he would demand that Israel ends its illegal occupation of Palestine and withdraw to its borders prior to the 1967 war, as ordered by the Security Council, of which Britain is a permanent member.

He would call for an end to the genocidal blockade which the UN - in reality, America and Britain - has imposed on the suffering people of Iraq for more than a decade, causing the deaths of half a million children under the age of five.

That's more deaths of infants every month than the number killed in the World Trade Center.

There are signs that Washington is about to extend its current "war" to Iraq; yet unknown to most of us, almost every day RAF and American aircraft already bomb Iraq. There are no headlines. There is nothing on the TV news. This terror is the longest-running Anglo-American bombing campaign since World War Two.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the US and Britain faced a "dilemma" in Iraq, because "few targets remain". "We're down to the last outhouse," said a US official. That was two years ago, and they're still bombing. The cost to the British taxpayer? £800 million so far.

According to an internal UN report, covering a five-month period, 41 per cent of the casualties are civilians. In northern Iraq, I met a woman whose husband and four children were among the deaths listed in the report. He was a shepherd, who was tending his sheep with his elderly father and his children when two planes attacked them, each making a sweep. It was an open valley; there were no military targets nearby.

"I want to see the pilot who did this," said the widow at the graveside of her entire family. For them, there was no service in St Paul's Cathedral with the Queen in attendance; no rock concert with Paul McCartney.

The tragedy of the Iraqis, and the Palestinians, and the Afghanis is a truth that is the very opposite of their caricatures in much of the Western media.

Far from being the terrorists of the world, the overwhelming majority of the Islamic peoples of the Middle East and south Asia have been its victims - victims largely of the West's exploitation of precious natural resources in or near their countries.

There is no war on terrorism. If there was, the Royal Marines and the SAS would be storming the beaches of Florida, where more CIA-funded terrorists, ex-Latin American dictators and torturers, are given refuge than anywhere on earth.

There is, however, a continuing war of the powerful against the powerless, with new excuses, new hidden agendas, new lies. Before another child dies violently, or quietly from starvation, before new fanatics are created in both the east and the west, it is time for the people of Britain to make their voices heard and to stop this fraudulent war - and to demand the kind of bold, imaginative non-violent initiatives that require real political courage.

The other day, the parents of Greg Rodriguez, a young man who died in the World Trade Center, said this: "We read enough of the news to sense that our government is heading in the direction of violent revenge, with the prospect of sons, daughters, parents, friends in distant lands dying, suffering, and nursing further grievances against us.

"It is not the way to go...not in our son's name."

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Answers

Swift, nobody ever pretented that war was a pretty thing. Folks get killed, sometimes not the legitimate targets. Unless the Taliban had been wiped out, there was no way the perpetrators of Sept 11 could be found. I'm not saying they will, but the chances are a lot better now than they were 3 weeks ago. Those folks are fanatical. If they are prepared to hijack passenger planes, taking out many, many innocent lives, who knows what they will do with chemical warfoare or (God forbid) a nuclear weapon.

My heart goes out for the innocent Afghans caught up in this - just like it did when I saw a programme on the repressive regime that ruled their country until a couple of days ago. Did you see the look of relief on the faces of the folks in Kabul when the Taliban fled?

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Still waiting to see the 4 million starving people we've been told so much about.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Who authored the article you posted, swift?

It smacks of Norm Chomsky, who regularly mixes truth, half-truth, barely-truth, plain inference and total supposition to support his personal view of the facts.

It seems to me it is entirely correct that we seriously evaluate the action being pursued by our Governments in our name. However, imho anyone who witnessed the events of Sept 11, and then puts forward a view that the West is deliberately pursing an economic agenda in Afghanistan needs to be regarded with appropriate caution.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

can't remember Clarky. I put a question mark on the question because i just don't know where the truth is.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Softie - they're mostly sitting around on the Pakistani and Iranian borders under plastic sheeting. There were some reports early on during the campaign, but I guess most of the journos in situ took a cab to the frontline where there's much more mileage reporting planes and bombs than 'yet more Asians suffering' pictures. Didn't do a head count at the time, but there was a fair few.

The thing that bothers me is that expediency is overarching any justice or 'right' behaviour. Certainly the world had to expect a reaction and given the US love with technology a bombing campaign and associated TV show was always on the cards (very similar to the Gulf War TV show). Remember, unless it happens on TV it doesn't count. Which is why the analysis of the rights and wrongs of the conflict is being continually undermined by the latest war footage.

By sponsoring one of the world's major heroin suppliers (the loose coalition of Northern Alliance...sounds like a building society) the 'International Community' (USA tm 1991 onwards) has fataly undermined its moral justification for the conflict. In Real Politik terms, it was a necessity to use the local opposition (Afghans attacking Afghans / Muslims attacking Muslims is far easier to maintain than a large scale foreign presence...especially US / UK forces) but to think that the NA are some sort of liberating popular army is a distortion of the truth. They are only slightly less puritanical than the Taliban (they allow music and men to shave) but small personal liberties are only a cosmetic surface to whatever policies a future government will impose.

As for the future in a post-Taliban Afghanistan, it's a real mess. The old tribal leaders in the south have taken advantage of instability (report in the Guardian), NA leaders are not interested in any sort of 'broad-based' government and certainly not interested in 'moderate' Talibans joining them. Pakistan should also be concerned. Many of its citizens joined the Taliban (as well as Arabs) and its military dictatorship (remember, the elected govt was overthrown in a coup, and until Sept 11 was under US sanctions) was one of three (I think) countries to recognise Taliban authority (Saudi and Yemen being the others). Pakistan covertly fought the NA in the North, and many NA leaders want some payback. Their willingness to remain on the leash can be best exemplified by the taking of Kabul...we say stop, you say go, go, go. Plenty of cameras on standby too. So the future govt will be made up of many turncoats, local tribal leaders with plenty of grudges to settle, military leaders with a bone to pick with Pakistan all of whom have a proven track record in deceit, bribary, treachery, murder and drug running. And they're the good guys. Allegedly.

Finally, what's it all about (Alfie)? The campaign was aimed at getting Bin Laden (dead or alive, as Dubya sensitively pointed out) and breaking up the mysterious and elusive Al Qaida 'network' (nice word network...makes it like a spy club like SPECTRE or the Mysterons). The added aim was to destroy those who 'harbour' terrorists. The last one is a maybe as far as success is concerned. But any campaign against Chechnya (remember them murdering British telecommunications workers?), Mexican guerillas or Angola seems a long way off. And what about terrorist organisations in the West? ETA, IRA, UVF? Are the Basques going to get bombed because they haven't turned in ETA? Will Kilburn pubs be tracked with a guided missle? Didn't think so. And Bin Laden is still supposed to be in a cave somewhere. Be assured he will not be tried in a court for any crimes. If he was a Nazi authorising genocide he'd get at least a year with a legal defence and a panel of judges. But apparently the judicial system isn't satisfactory to deal with those accused of the Sept 11 attacks. Justice? Petty vengence more like. And it will nicely hush up any holes in the famed yet elusive conclusive evidence against him. Besides, at the end of the day a US Senator summed up what he wanted to see as the outcome in Afghanistan "democracy and privitisation" (on Newsnight this week). Money still talks.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

The article is by veteran leftist campaigning journo John Pilger and was published in the Mirror on October 29th. Pilger has been writing savagely critical journalism on western foreign policy for as long as I can remember. Usually it gets printed in the obscure leftist journals and/or New Statesmen that only saddos like me read. Amazingly at the start of this conflict the Mirror signed him up and actually lead with that article on the front page. Pilger frustrates me, he is v. old-left, hates nu-lab, + pontificates in a high-minded simplistic way that annoys even a confirmed leftie like myself (compare with Clarkeys criticisms of Chomskey). An acquaintance reckons he might as well be a MI6 plant discrediting the left with wooly porous arguements. That said I respect the Mirror for daring to print Pilger.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

4 million Bobby. Should be knee deep in them.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Hang on, I'll just nip across and count them ;-) Like most big numbers thrown about I'm sure there's a certain amount of rounding up / down. I understand the Pakistanis estimate abouut 1.5m refugees sitting in camps near their Afghan border, while Iran reckons 2m are whiling away the hours with a pan of rice in their neck of the woods. A lot of Red Cross reports state a large number of refugees since the bombing campaign fleeing to the borders. Given that they will probably have little in the way of personal belongings, no opportunity of gainful employment, and will be with extended family, I think the chances are most will be hungry most of the time. Starving is an emotive word, and 4m is a big number of people. But it's realistic. Like I said before, just 'cos it's not on the telly doesn't mean it's not happening :-)

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

So I guess they weren't starving and tortured and fleeing before the bombing?

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

There's a lot to take in there, and that's just to cope with one point of view, but this lot isn't about points of view. Seems to me that these simply cancel each other out. For every published interpretation favouring one viewpoint, there'll be equally well reasoned justification of an opposing point of view.

What we're left with is a sort of sympathy vote - choose the viewpoint that's closest to where your sympathies lie. Maybe this is simplistic, but there's no way I can, or even want to have to, interpret all this second hand information merely to form an opinion, because that's all it boils down to.

None of these publicised points of view will make a blind bit of difference to what's actually going on. And it's all after the event anyway, so all that happens is we throw up our hands in despair, disgust, frustration, whatever, and then subside until the next lot of information is presented and interpreted so that we can be well informed on what's being done on our behalf. And I'm not even sure it is being done on our behalf.

Eventually, some conclusion will be reached which probably won't really satisfy anybody. And then it'll start all over again, somewhere else.

Jaundiced ? Too bliddy true.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

You're right, Ciara, but it ill-behoves the US or the UK to forget the funding they gave all the fundamentalist opposition to the Soviets. Bin Laden's lot and the Taliban were given huge amounts of funding as they were perceived to be particularly strong fighters. Once the Soviets were out, we left them to do their torturing and are now paying part of the price for selective interference. The West didn't care who was being tortured until 11 September. Sad but true.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

ummm... hate to throw a spanner in the works here but....this whole war could have been avoided if Bin Laden had been given up. The fact that he's still out there alive, and the fact that the Taliban have not given him up is the sole reason for the deaths of innocents. The Taliban has the power to stop the war. It's ENTIRELY up to them.

If the Taliban had any care for the Afghani people they would have done the right thing Setpember 12th and kicked Bin Laden's ass out of the country. The fact here is simple...war is not a pretty thing... innocents will die....children, women whoever...the thing you need to know here is that it could hav been avoided.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

PS. Ciara, I'm not saying that the US deserved 11 September which they certainly didn't.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

As a matter of international law, Bin Laden probably should have been tried in Afghanistan. By a lot of interpretations, the US and the UK are now the ones who are acting illegally for purposes of international law.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Very true. The US has long seemed happier to just bury it's head in the sand to anything that wasn't affecting US 'interests', or worse stick our noses in trying to make things a 'US interest'. If half that energy and money were spent on issues on US soil we wouldn't have as many problems domestically, and possibly wouldn't have p*ssed off so many people around the world. Sept 11 was a major wake-up call that couldn't have surprised anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to what's been going on the world. Shocked, absolutely, but hardly a surprise. So what next? The US and UK just sit back and say, "Oh, yeah we screwed up, so sorry, we'll just go lick our wounds now and leave you alone."? Then the terrorists go and kill more innocent people, drop chemical weapons, etc etc. Great.

True, we created the problem and we now need to fix it. Psycho fanatic terrorists aren't going to go away on their own. I only hope that lessons have been learned and we'll be a bit more careful with who we fund in teh future. The pessimist in me knows that won't happen, but I'd go nuts if I didn't hope for things to be better.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

".....just 'cos it's not on the telly doesn't mean it's not happening"

..... and doesn't mean it wasn't happening before the recent US action, because of course it was. The major cause of the refugee problem is several years of drought, not coalition bombs.

The West gets criticised for exacerbating the refugee problem - despite the Taliban themselves frustrating every effort to get aid to these people because it didn't suit their political purposes - and also gets criticised for ignoring them pre-Sept 11. Also of this is untrue and unfair.

Despite what some would have us believe, the bombing has most definitely not targeted Afghan civilians, but directly at the the people who have fostered and supported the Al-Queda group and repressed and savagely brutalised their own people.

We all deplore the incidence of any accidental civilian casualties. However, the bald facts are that the activities of Al-Queda - potentially including more damnable acts than even those already perpetrated - simply had to stopped. We simply had NO choice.

Of course, they have representatives all over the world who also need to be apprehended - and I'm sure this is being actively pursued. Neverthless, the centre of their operations was Afghanistan, and something dramatic needed to be done to severely damage their capabilities for inflicting terror - on both the West and their own people.

Despite the wailing of some Western 'intelligensia', I've yet to hear a credible alternative to what is being undertaken, and dont believe for one moment that OBL and his cohorts could have been persuaded to take a more elightened path through diplomacy - "cuckoo land" springs to mind regarding that particular strategy.

Regarding the Northern Alliance, there are clearly dangers going forward. Neverthless, let's also remember that the coalition is close to over-turning the Taliban with essentially no casualties among it's own Forces, and has avoided being demonised by the local population. Regretably, the diplomatic efforts in support of the military operation are lagging dangerously behind the military campaign, which significantly increases the attendant risks. However, much has been achieved and let's just see what transpires over the next few weeks before we jump to further criticisms.

As for who particpates in any new Adminstration in Afghanistan, we have what we have, and this cannot also be blamed on the West. Afghanistan must be ruled by the Afghans - warts and all - all we can realistically do is give them the encouragement, assistance, and fundamentally the opportunity to put in place something better than they have had for the last 25 years. Or are we also wrong in doing that?

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

As usual, Clarky, very well said. :-)

Agree the Afghans need to establish their own government and I would hope a UN coalition can help them find a way that works within their culture. There seem to be some ethnic factions within Afghanistan, so this may not be easy. The most important thing is that any Western coalition/country not impose our ideas on them as though it's the only way. If anything good can come of the years of war and Taliban rule, hopefully it's that the people there realize they must work together or never know what it is to live in peace.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

war is not about morality it's about self preservation and from that perspective it's justified. if you don't like what it's trying to preserve i suggest you try living in a non secular or non democratic country for a few years then write another essay.

from the moral perspective i find some satisfaction that the taliban are being wiped from the face of the earth, these folks are or have the potential of hitler or pohl-pot (how do you spell it?) to inflict misery on their own population. sure you can cite past events and policy and shout hypocrisy, but guess what, that was then..

finally a question to mr. student union cafeteria politician bobby dooooley, given the situation, what would you?

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Thanks for the patronising remarks.

I do not for one moment believe the comparison with Hitler and Pol Pot and the Talibunnies. There may be some pseudo-facist similarities in restricting personal freedoms, but this does amount to a planned and coherent attempt to murder a whole genus of people. I don't particularly like the Taliban regime, but then again I don't particularly like any Theocracy and I have a problem with the state vs religion debate all round. Any satisfaction that might be gleamed from the regime's downfall should be tempered with the fact that the hijackers were not Afghans, and many 1,000s of their supporters and some leaders have turned against their own (in time honoured tradition) and are now with the good guys. So that's ok then.

I would like to add that the Afghans did indeed govern themselves, it's just that the government wasn't particularly pleasant (yes, I know there were many foreign influences too). But neither was Augusto Pinochet's lot and look what happened to him...or not. The fact is that we're still seeing the fallout from the Cold War conflicts of the past. And that is definitely rooted in Warsaw Pact / NATO history.

What I don't get is if there were all these terrorist training camps, millions of dollars in cash and equipment and a sophisticated network of individuals bent on destroying the national capitalist empire why did it take a disaster to get something done about it?

As for 'what would I do about it then' - I don't know. I'm not able to come up with every answer for everything (that's weekends only between 7-10pm). What I aimed to put forward in this pub debate is the view that the war is not good vs evil. If anything it's same old vs same old. I don't necessarily believe that diplomacy is the answer to everything, but it was never tried. Governments of far less appealing hue have equally committed atrocities, say the Chinese in Tianamen (sp?) Square, but since they have a fairly robust self-defence capability nothing happens except some nasty words, a bit of cold-shoulder treatment, and then it's business as usual. Did you know Idi Amin, famous for being big on repatriating Asians and murdering opposition, is still busy eating oranges in Saudi Arabia? Nice people to do business with. Like I say, the stated aims of this conflict have only partially been met. I eagerly await to find out what happens next when Bin Laden continues to evade capture. Who's for the chop in the 50 year war?

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

I can honestly say that if there was any way at all that the media could show pictures of starving refugees receiving succour from our brave boys on Children in Need weekend then it would be 24 hour blanket-coverage. Tracing the pattern of the “4 million” backwards we find ourselves back in the realms of the problems caused by needing to come up with new stories every hour to beat the rival news stations to win over the big advertising contracts. In this dangerous situation any piece of opinion or sheer rumour suddenly gets dressed up as a fact and is reported as such. Christian Aid painted a worst- case scenario of what would occur with an extended campaign and came up with a potential 4 million people starving. When questioned as to why no more than 50,000 people had been found in camps in Pakistan the answer was that the Taliban weren’t letting them cross the border. Watching the Taliban melt away, one wanders what is now preventing this tidal wave of humanity from crossing the now unguarded border. I don’t blame Christian Aid for making the most of a bad situation, they are a committed pacifist movement who would no more support an armed conflict than force their peculiar fundamentalist beliefs down the throats of the desperate. I would, however, like to think that the media could show a little more restraint than to report any point of view as fact until it has been confirmed.

After the 4 million starving folk have been paraded in front of the cameras I would like to hear from the characters who announced that an air campaign would achieve nothing in Afghanistan except to turn the entire population against the Allied forces. I mean surely they must run out of CIA operatives pretending to be delighted to see the back of the Taliban soon and the real population can come out of hiding? Of course this is all just my opinion and shouldn’t be mistaken for The Truth or anything like that :-)

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Is anyone else starting to find this thread upsetting?

Pit Bill is right. Most of this is opinion. We are all relatively well-educated and would like to think that we form opinions based on facts but I haven't been on a fact-finding mission to Afghanistan and I am not sure anyone else on here has. We take opinions from the media, from what we know about geo-politics and history, and, in my case, some long-fotten knowledge of Public International Law. However, politics and history are all about opinion - there are no definite answers which is why, despite the plethora of primary materials time, we still get David Starky arguing the toss with someone about whether Catherine of Aragon really was England's most under-rated queen. To that extent, we are all probably wrong to some extent with our opinions. As the great American President (can't remember which one (Softie might know??) said, "I don't agree with what you say but I'd defend to the death your right to say it".

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

I find it slightly ironic that we're trying to help out the same people who have been bleating that because we left them in the lurch for donkey's years, we shouldn't blame them for taking advantage of our rush to self destruct nasally.

Maybe a bit of a sidetrack, and possibly a minor consideration, but does anybody really believe they'll pack in growing opium poppies ?

Even though they're at the low financial return end of the line - 5p a kilo at their end, £1000 a kilo at the delivery end sort of thing - it's still worth the effort compared with other agriculture, apparently. Talk about chickens coming home to roost.

Vile as Bin Laden is, I think we should hope it won't be long before he becomes just another bit player, because the longer he remains the focus of all of this activity, the more the surrounding populations are likely to be alienated. As has been pointed out, it's no consolation at all to know that your family's demise was just an unfortunate accident of war.

Can't remember if a reward has been offered for his mates to shop him, but that would be worth a try I reckon - make them an offer they can't refuse. It would probably still be cheaper than what the bombing etc costs.

It seems to me we've made our point with the direct military action and the time has come to take the spotlight off Bin Laden and his cronies - it's verging on being a diminishing returns scenario I think. We'd need the most effective pre-emptive measures in place and the ability to react quickly on a situation by situation basis to anything else he might try, but I still think we'd be better employed now, taking a humanitarian point of view.

We need to get the locals on our side. If we can't, once the euphoria of being shot of the the taliban wears off, the old resentments will probably resurface.

What strikes me is that the world spotlight will have to be focussed on Afghanistan for years, because once it's turned elsewhere, it won't take long for the people to go back to their old ways.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

I believe there already is a $7 million ransom on OBL's head PB.

Given the present situation there is no reason why we can't launch a massive humanitarian programme - and I believe we will.
At the same time I see no reason to stop vigorously pursuing OBL and his cronies to its logical conclusion.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Nor should we stop pursuing him and his cronies. What reason is there to allow him to roam free? Something about leopards and spots comes to mind. Personally I'll really only be satisfied seeing them dead, but keeping them holed up for life in a prison forced to shave and listen to bad pop music 24hrs a day would run a close second. ;-)

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

I agree we should continue the hunt, but I think the two aims are mutually exclusive. I think the only way a workable humanitarian programme can be organised is if the obl hunt is toned down from this blitzkrieg approach. They'll have to rely on SAS type operations if they want the aid programme to be anything more than just a gesture.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

"but keeping them holed up for life in a prison forced to shave and listen to bad pop music 24hrs a day would run a close second. ;-)"

I sometimes get the unaccountable feeling that somebody's watching me...

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Ironically, OBL is probably safest if he takes refuge in an EU country - we can't, by virtue of EU law, extradite anyone who is susceptible to cruel and unnatural punishment which the EU considers the death penalty to be (and possibly listening to Atomic Kitten for a day). This has come up several times before with the people in question only being extradited on the basis that the US waived the death penalty. Be very interesting what would happen if OBL turfed up in Frankfurt or somewhere....might be surprising how quickly amendments could be made to the EU Convention on Human Rights.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Thinking about this, it might be for the best if he did turn up in Europe. Quick Act of Parliament suspending the relevant legislation and he'd be gone.

Here's a question, though, if an EU country, say France, stuck to the letter of the Human Rights conventions etc and refused to hand him over, would we bomb Paris?

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

The US has invoked whatever war act they require to try Al Quaeda suspects by military tribunal overseas. Similar to the nazi trials after WWII. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Bin Laden made it as far as Europe, though I'd be surprised if he made it that far alive. I would think political pressures would be enormous on whatever country he lands in to turn him over to US/UN authorities.

A bigger concern to me is what happens if he crosses over into one of the countries bordering Afghanistan, particularly Iran or Pakistan. It already looks like the Pashtun will give Mullah Omar safe passage out of the country. So does the coalition go after him, and in what manner? Do we start dropping bombs on Iran or Pakistan if they don't give him up? Send secret operatives to track him down and take him out? Let him go and he'll be spearheading more terrorist activity with or without BL. A scary idea.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

And so, to Rwanda..........

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

There are reports emanating from Iran that OBL is already being protected by Pashtuns in Western Pakistan. This is entirely logical, and has been my fear for some time.

Further destabilising Pakistan, which is already split over this issue, would be a logical next step for this nasty, but clever, piece of work as punishment for General Musharef's overt support for the Coalition.

Success in such a venture could potentially give him ready access to nuclear weapons - now there's a comforting thought!

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

this isn't a hindsight question but why have we been so sure that he is in Afghanistan? I hope it's based on more than the Taliban just not denying that he's there..

Ciara, I think you're right that the pressures on any country that found itself hosting him, to hand him over would be immense and the mechanisms in most European countries would be quite simple.

Did anyone else notice Tony Blair on telly the other day. He made one tubthumping speech about bombing any country that harboured terrorists and on the next breath, while praising the IRA for decommissioning, said that dialogue and the political process is the only answer and that violence never works. I'm not criticising Blair in particular but it does show a wooliness of thinking that doesn't bode well for this entire campaign.

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

PS. Ciara, your point about spearheading terrorism is very interesting. To tell the truth, my biggest fear is that, for every bomb that has been dropped on Afghanistan, we've created another Bin Laden (not just in Afghanistan, but in European countries like the UK which are home to many Moslems, some of whom consider themselves fundamentalists). It isn't just the Taliban who consider this to be a Holy War. Dreadful times.

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

Didn't the Taliban say that they had him under house arrest?

Then when they wouldn't hand him over to the US, the attacks began.

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

In the first week after September 11, they claimed that they had him and wanted to try him there but apart from pictures from caves, is there actually a thread of evidence that he IS there?

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

That's the problem, there seems to be no concrete evidence as to where he might be. Some reports say he's left the country, but the US is still saying he's in Afghanistan. How they can be so sure, yet still not know where to find him, boggles my mind.

Also, Dougal, it's true there are likely more Bin Laden's out there so we really can't stop after getting Bin Laden. That's where cooperation between countries becomes imperative. Sharing of intelligence to track down terrorists and some kind of agreement on how to handle them once they've been found out. Going beyond that, it's high time countries trying to fight terrorism work on solving at least part of the cause, the kind of poverty and hopelessness that drives so many to join up with terrorist networks. I've no idea where to even start with that issue, though.

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

Quite a selection of media quotes bandied around on here with a few home opinions. Mine is pretty simple , there is 100 of my old outfit on Bagrum Air Base , with more on 48 hrs notice. I now if still involved would be after reading some of nonsense being wrote at home would be asking myself , "Is it worth it " , bliddy hell its like football, we should support our team, thick and thin, what message are we conveying to our lads . Sept 11th was in my eyes an act of war, not interested in past arguments , i deal in now and the future, the man homself has outlined his objectives for Christs sake , and I am happy enough to visit the kirk on the odd Sunday as opposed to the mosque on a Friday. A rich sexually inadequate who embraced all things Western until he reached 18 and bored with it all moves into terrosism, from afar, never involved himself does not get my vote and as for the Taliban , all they had to do was give him up for trial.

Glad someone mentioned the word `drought` , and I am on line with Softie regarding the refugee problem, Geldoffs/Connelly`s videos out of Africa were more harrowing in my eyes, is it me but the children I have witnessed on TV all appear to be bright eyed, in a reasonable condition , and not the numbers they say. Got get used to the fact you will never beat the terrosist , minimise his/hers capabilities to inflict serious damage , thats all you can do , they have the basic element of surprise, and complaceny being present amongst Govt` What we are doing now as always is for future generations, (of our own) in my case , so apart from the bombings , if you want to rise in the morning to brush your teeth and the water supply has been infected carry on with your liberal views, if you want to be bombarded with dodgy mail, please carry on regardless, when John Pilger is trampling on other commuters in the Subway to get out after a chemical attack, carry on with your doctrine John mate. The decision has been made by our democratically elected Govt who surely have more info than the host of armchair experts being wheeled out, jeez we had a 23 year old counter terrosism expert on the the other night!! , the mechanics they have at their disposal are the armed forces , not overly paid I would think for the job they are expected to do , to make the world a SAFER PLACE for us to to enjoy. Hell I marched last Sunday in respect of the veterans , if we are to compare, please do it like for like.

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

"The decision has been made by our democratically elected government" Buff? Sadly not, Our Tony just went ahead and got his tongue wedged up Bush's fudge tunnel without consulting anyone, well unless he asked Cherie and the kids.

Anyway surely the point of democracy is that we can decide for ourselves whether we get behind our team or not whether it be NUFC or the US army (British troops are unlikely to be used, the Generals are against it).

I'm glad the Taliban have gone and look forward to Bin Laden being tried although I think it'll be hard to pin anything on him but a bullet in the head will solve that little conundrum. Unlike Our Tony, the US government and the other johnny-come-latelys I was protesting about their regime years ago through Amnesty International. The result, nowt of course. I really hope that the UN can sort out a real solution to the politics of Afghanistan because the lot in charge now are just as prone to wickedness as the Taliban.

Two points come to mind from reading the comments above:

1. Don't read a lot into the pictures of happy smiling 'liberated' Afghans. The Taliban were greeted with cheering crowds as well. If you live in a country like Afghanistan you cheer any invading army, your life might depend on it.

2. Back in the 80s when US Colonel Oliver North was exposed as having illegally armed and trained terrorists to kill teachers and health workers in Nicaragua did the US extradite him for trial? Of course not, he was tried in the States. So why expect the Afghan government to hand over Bin Laden? As Dougal pointed out, under international law he can only be tried in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or possibly in The Hague.

-- Anonymous, November 19, 2001

Went on trial here and somehow was let off. Never did understand that one. :-/

-- Anonymous, November 19, 2001

there is an interesting line of thinking on this thread (dread & bobby) who seem to be wringing their hands at the whole thing without actually saying that the military action is the wrong thing to do or stating a clear point of view or an alternative course of action.

so boys, in the spirit of thoughtful debate, what's on your mind??

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Hiya Besty, you seem a little less feisty today, we'll see ya out sticking flowers down the gun pipes soon.

To answer your question, I am in two minds. As a rule I don't like to see bullying for whatever reason and the US bombing started out that way, it was like watching Mike Tyson take on a 3 year old in a wheelchair. However as I said I'm glad to see the end of the Taliban and glad that there now seems to be some impetus towards a solution to Afghanistan's internal strife. These may be secondary results against America's prime objective, revenge on Bin Laden but there is no doubt that the bombing has achieved in a very short time what years of protest and lobbying could not.

Of course the US doesn't really give atoss for the Afghan people but public relations is forcing them to sort out a long term peace which looks promising. Hypocrisy and lies are rife but hey this is politicians we're talking about, men who have one clear motive, to get re-elected.

When I lived in the west end of Newcastle we had a horrible family across the back lane who robbed everyone, screamed abuse in the street etc. One night they got firebombed killing their 6 month old baby. A deplorable act, but they moved away and the street became a much nicer place to live in. I would never have put the petrol through their letterbox but I must admit I was happy with the result.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Ok, I take it you've stopped patronising me now George :-)

I don't wring my hands about war - sometimes it is necessary, and although many horrible things happen which should be traced to the perpetrators and stopped, the overall aims and objectives are decent and honourable enough to justify military involvement. WW2 is a classic (cliche?) example, when there was simply no feasible option. The later discoveries of brutality and murder only support the decision.

This war is highly dubious, both for its stated aims and in how it is being prosecuted. As said above, the US attacks do not compare to more recent attrocities which the West has done little / nothing about (Srebranice (sp?), Rwanda, Angola) either in terms of numbers of dead or the shocking nature of the attacks. Those responsible should be brought to justice, and when I say justice I mean a court of law. If Milosovic can be tried so can Bin Laden(...but why not Pinoche?).

My problem with the Afghanistan campaign is that very quickly an association has been made that in defeating the Taliban regime (who are not nice people) a major blow will have been made against this mysterious Al-Qaeda 'network'. I don't believe that a US / UK backed Northern Alliance victory will give us that blow. If Afghanistan was chosen because of close links to Bin Laden then surely Saudi Arabia and Sudan will be bombed next, both of whom have played willing host to Bin Laden? Maybe even Pakistan who openly supported the Taliban until it became expedient not to. And what about Chechnya which has itself serious links to terrorist networks and isn't unknown to have blown up a few blocks of flats in Russia and murdering then beheading British citizens. But probably not. Saudi owns oil and lots of it, and is a sacred nation to muslims (which is what is supposed to have kicked off Bin Laden's obsessions when US troops were there in the Gulf War), while Sudan is a mess of warlords and tribal gangs fighting each other for dirt. Pakistan has nuclear capability. Chechnya has no natural domestic insurgance waiting to take power.

The Afghanistan conflict is an exercise in picking up the pieces of a mess caused in no small way by the machinations of the cold war superpowers and their allies.

The alternative to military action is diplomacy. It appears in the most apparently intransigent of problems (Northern Ireland, Israel / Palestine) and although it takes time, results if desired do happen. The path to war in Afghanistan bypassed any such process of meaningful diplomatic action. US wanted, understandably, revenge pure and simple and they wanted it soon. For the US it would have taken a man of steel to stand against the mob and call for cool decisions. The decision for large scale military conflict was too easy. That worries me. Just like Blunkett's 'Anti-Terror' Bill, it's rushed and the consequences are not being thought through. Opposition is dismissed as being lettuce eating, Guardian reading hippies. Well, reasoned debate and the right to opposition is part of the democratic process. I see little being done justifiably in the name of democracy. It's a proper mess, but that's what you get for crapping on your neighbours.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

as i said, the war is not about morality its about the highest form of self interest, self preservation. the desire for self preservation is the driving force behind the will to fight. whats wrong with that?

just because this factor was missing in other instances (rwanda etc.) and action wasn't taken doesn't mean that this is wrong.

the terrorists gave the usa no choice, they too thought they were doing the "right" thing when they hijacked those planes, the taliban presumably thought the same when they sponsored bin laden's group. that's all fine but it does take out the option of diplomacy or the notion of invoking international law (whatever that is)

the terrorists action was presumably calculated to provoke the response it did from the usa, what it didn't count on was the lack of support from the rest of the muslim world. if the usa had not reacted then they (the terrorists) would have come up with another scheme.

in waging the war the usa is achieving the objective of destroying bin laden and more importantly reserving the right to do this again if another country ever thinks it's a good idea to sponsor terrorist groups bent on global destabilization. what's wrong with that?

and ok the usa wouldn't usually be so interested in the fate of the afghan people, they are however interested in seeing the country being run by stable and peaceful government and now at least they have license to influence that.

no its not pretty, its not always consistent, but again what's the alternative?

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001