By all means, You go Don.

Don Firth - 11 Sep 03 - 08:29 PM

Reflections on "The War on Terrorism."

Your first paragraph:
True it would not take the entire resources to plan and execute attacks, such as were mounted on 11th September 2001. If the entire resources of a nation were put to that use, the attacks would have been far more extensive, the numbers killed greater, the extent of destruction greater and the effects of the aftermath more severely felt in humane, economic and political terms.

Don contends that funding required to carry out such an attack as 9/11 need not be all that great. That flies in the face of every piece of evidence so far gathered by police forces throughout Europe and in America itself, with regard to time in preparation, numbers involved and extent of training thought necessary. His appreciation of what is required might work for a Hollywood movie script, but would not hold good for what was actually done and how it was done.

Your second paragraph:
Very early days the current administration, in the form of Colin Powell, is on record as stating, very clearly, exactly what you have said in your opening sentence. But they did have to check that very thoroughly, even after Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, they had to check whether or not Al-Qaeda received assistance from any foreign government.

Osama bin Laden's involvement beyond mere approval is proven in the debriefing tape - remember the one in which bin Laden (qualified civil engineer) expresses delight at the extent of the damage caused, his surprise that the towers actually collapsed, something he thought would not have happened. Indicates his prior knowledge of what was to happen, with what and where the aircraft were to hit those buildings.

Your third paragraph:
"The claim was that there were Islamic terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, so the United States attacked the nation of Afghanistan."

Here you can only be referring to Bill Clinton's cruise missile strike, because subsequent to the attacks of 9/11, the US Government requested that the regime in power in Afghanistan expell Al-Qaeda and hand over its leaders to face trial in the United States of America. The Taliban refused and the US military was ordered to attack known Al-Qaeda targets and areas of operation within Afghanistan from the air. At the same time the US Government with the assistance of quite a large number of countries openly and extensively backed Northern Alliance forces already fighting the Taliban inside Afghanistan. It was those forces who overthrew the Taliban. When the attack began the effects on Al-Qaeda were; that they were denied what they regarded as a secure base for operations and training; some were killed; some were captured; stores of weapons, ammunition and explosives were destroyed. Yes, they were scattered and have become less effective because of that, and are becoming increasingly less effective because of the reaction of the international community, and measures put in place to diminish Al-Qaeda's operating capability - all of which is still on-going. Their immediate bolt hole was to the tribal areas of the North-West frontier of Pakistan. Due to political sensitivities this area used to be left very much to its own devices by the Pakistani Government - not so today. The Pakistani Army and police are more active in that region now than they have ever been, and the level of activity is growing. The Taliban are being pushed, the only place they can go is back into Afghanistan where they will have to face the emerging Afghan Army, ISAF and the US forces on the ground and in the air.

Your description of conditions in Afghanistan are laughable, when put in the context that this situation is the result of actions taken by the current US administration. Afghanistan left in rubble for the second time in two decades - Afghanistan has been rubble since the Soviets occupied the country, it wasn't in much better shape even before that. Throughout its history, warlords have always run most of that country, the degree on peace dependent on how in tune the various warlords were with the ruler or central government - so nothing has changed for the last hundred or so years.

Your fourth paragraph:
Opening with - "Then Bush and Company attacked Iraq,"

No one in the current US Administration has EVER "claimed" that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks - If you chose to continue spreading this lie, all well and good, but it does not alter the fact that what you are saying is not true and will continue to be untrue no matter how many times you reiterate it, or how much those reading your posts, or listening to you, wish to believe it. Its a lie Don, be honest enough to admit it.

The allegations relating to Saddams WMD, were based on the UNSCOM Status Report. That report detailed what the Iraqi's themselves said they had, but UNSCOM had not been able to trace and destroy. After 1998, there were no inspectors or monitoring facilities in Iraq it became a blind spot. Subsequent to 9/11, the situation in Iraq had to assessed and any potential threat removed. This was tried through the efforts of the United Nations, solely at the instigation of the US and UK Governments, and Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply with resolutions passed by the UNSC - HE chose not to, George W Bush and Tony Blair did not force him not to comply, it was entirely his decision. That decision was largely based on the fact that he had successfully fooled the UN for 12 years and he fully believed that he could do so again. Iraq's links to, and support for international terrorist groups (Not Al-Qaeda) operating in the middle-east is well documented. Saddam Hussein was unique in being the only head of state to applaud the attacks of 11th September 2001. On the strength of that, are you honestly trying to say that no threat existed and that no potential threat existed. If you are then I would dearly like you to prove that case beyond all possible doubt.

Your fifth paragraph:
Opening - "The attack on the World Trade Center was a criminal act."

It most definitely was not! It was an attack on western civilisation in its entirety, not solely directed against the United States of America. It was an attack by a terrorist organisation consisting of fundamentalist Islamic extremists, who freely admitted responsibility, in the mistaken belief that western civilisation would be powerless to respond - In selecting a target in the heart of one of America's major cities, they certainly got that wrong.

The United States of America did not go to war with, "the country from which the criminals" came. America did not go to war with Afghanistan. As stated above and borne out by fact, America attacked Al-Qaeda targets within Afghanistan (which she had done before) and supported one side in an on-going internal conflict - it did not do so in isolation. It only adopted that latter course of action after requests for the extradition of those responsible were categorically refused by the rulers of Afghanistan. Your proposed recommended course of action was exactly what Osama bin Laden and his organisation were banking on, it would have been totally ineffective while he sat back in Afghanistan and planned the next attack. The US response did concentrate minds around the world - The "You are either with us, or against us " statement put exactly the right focus on the matter - Ask Richard Haas, Gerry Adams and the ex-CO of the PIRA in Derry, Martin McGuinness.

Your sixth paragraph:
America has exercised domination of the Middle East since the collapse of Soviet Russia, so to achieve what you state is their aim required no action whatsoever. If what you say is true, why did the US not take over Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti oil and gas - much cheaper alternative, much better return. But no they go for a country (Afghanistan) that does not export any of its resources and a country (Iraq) that even at the height of its production pre-1990 supplied only one-seventeenth of the worlds demands. That I find strange.

Your seventh paragraph:
There have always been terrorists and, unfortunately, there will always be terrorists, regardless of enlightened humanity. I would bet that the thousands of American citizens who weekly dropped money into the NORAID collection boxes thought themselves pretty enlightened human beings - September 11th 2001, showed them exactly what such contributions could achieve.

An organisation has declared war on you, your country, your way of life. They are not open to discussion, not receptive to negotiation, they simply seek your destruction. Now, your government can respond in whatever way it deems fit, and call that action whatever it likes, it does not alter the fact that you are at war one iota.

Your eight and concluding paragraph:

In this you wave your PNAC banner, warning of the evils we can expect from Empire America. The PNAC think tank wrote its paper in 2000, according to Michael Meacher. The blueprint for global domination by the United States of America - Phooey The Pax Americana has been in existence since the end of the Second World War - and by and large the world has benefited from it.

Your last sentence in this paragraph, 20 x 20 hindsight. Something akin to me giving you a sheet of paper with thousands of dots, then asking you to draw someone you don't know by joining up some of the dots on the page. I give you some information regarding the person but nothing specific. It would be reasonably impossible for you to accomplish that task. I then give you a picture of the person and the task becomes easy.