| |
|
aaarrrggghhh...why must i always rise to the bait?
ok: also:
quote riginally posted by HunterWolf:
The Secretary General of NATO said "We've seen the evidence, and it is clear and very strong". So did Pakistan. So did Britain.
NATO and Britain are allies, and their support is not always the best proof of anything - the UK Govt supported the Sudan bombing, which turned out to be such a horrible blunder. Pakistan has already received very sizeable financial rewards for their co-operation (the details of which have appeared in the mainstream media - i'll try and source them).
quote:Originally posted by HunterWolf:
Would you have liked a pacifistic answer to the Nazi threat in WWII?
hunter, PLEASE tell me you're not comparing the poorest nation on earth with one of the most powerful military powers in history.
quoteriginally posted by HunterWolf:
Someone said:
>> If the US wasn't targeting civilians, we wouldn't still be bombing after EIGHT! DAYS! STRAIGHT! There just aren't that many military targets in Afghanistan.
No offense (I mean this in the spirit of healthy debate, no snide tone here), how do YOU know?? Are you a military expert?
i don't suppose any of us here are, hunter - but Mohamed Heikal, long considered the most respected politiical commentator of the Arab world said this: "I have seen Afghanistan, and there is not one target deserving the $1m that a cruise missile costs, not even the royal palace..."
he also said, regarding the evidence against bin Laden: "I understand that the American administration wanted an enemy right away to hit, to absorb the anger of the American people," he says, "but I wish they had produced some real evidence. I read what Mr Blair said in the House of Commons carefully: they had prepared the atmosphere for that statement by saying he is going to reveal some of the proof, but there is no proof, nothing; it is all deductions. Colin Powell was more honest than anybody: he said if not this, it doesn't matter, he has committed so many other crimes that necessitate taking action against him. But that is like the Chinese proverb: 'Hit your wife every day; if you don't know the reason, she does.' You can't do it this way."
and as for what the US should do. well, it's straightforward - if you follow international law. you take yr grievance to the UN, and submit it to their ruling. they tell you what you can and can't do. now: it's true to say the US has adhered to the procedure here, citing Article 51 as a legitimation of their attack. the UN has accepted it. however: the reason a lot of people have a problem with this (including myself) is that Article 51 is supposed to be invoked only in the interest of self-defence.
right now, the US cannot conclusively prove who was the perpetrator of the attack (meaning no one can sanction a target), and cannot prove it is under direct threat. in this case 'self defence' means that the US is being allowed to take whatever action it feels is necessary, against anyone it suspects or plain dislikes. i don't think anyone particularly likes the taleban or al-quida - but it sets a singuilarly dangerous precedent - and there's not another country on earth strong enough to get away with it. the US considers itself above the law.
but - enough of that - like i say, the US has paid lip service to international law, and the UN are allowing it.
what the US should do next is throw its weight behind a truly powerful international anti-terrorist force. but this will only work if it is non-partisan - if the powerful nations who commit atrocities are just as likely to be brought before it as the stateless groups.
...so we agree over many things - but i think you're missing the crucial shift that has to come out of this: the US must alter its foreign policy once and for all. again: It is important, Heikal says, to differentiate between the powerful anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East and the response to the attack on the World Trade Centre. "I know there were some demonstrations by people who expressed happiness," he says, "but they are not representative. People in the Middle East know what terrorism means. When tourists were shot at Luxor, there was indignation in Egypt. On the other hand, there is an unbelievable degree of anti-American feeling all over the area."
The reasons for that loathing of the US are, he says, easy to pinpoint - the Americans' "blind" support for Israel and their backing for illegitimate, discredited regimes across the Middle East. He castigates every government in the region, including his own, and blames the US for propping them up. "The people did not choose these governments and in any free election none of them would succeed. They are not legitimate governments; they do not represent anything other than power."
This is bad enough, but the fact that the US - the shining city on the hill - colludes with them is even worse. "The US supports the status quo whatever it is. They talk about democracy and then ignore it; they talk about the UN and ignore it; in every way you can accuse them of double standards. It is revolting to see them talking about democracy and then supporting undemocratic regimes. They talk about international legitimacy and then support what the Israelis are doing." All this is said with an analyst's precision, rather than an orator's passion.
it looks increasingly likely that al-quida does not operate in a traditional top-down way - that its strength comes from autonomous cells who create their own 'actions' - the only unifying factor an ideology fuelled by bitter experience of powerlessness and poverty in their home nations.
the only way to destroy terrorism is to remove the causes of terrorism. |
|
|
