Dave said:
You're joking. "We bombed their ship, and their president was so
occupied with is girlfriend, he didn't do anything. We bombed their
embassies, and they "protested strongly". We can get away with whatever
we want, and all they'll do is squeal about it."
That kind of thing.
The thing I miss most from the American (and British) politicians, and
many of the posters here, is the ability to look at a conflict from the
other side. You might not agree with the other side, but a bit of
thought as to how things look from their point of view makes an enormous
difference in settling any disagreement. After all, you do want all
sides to reach agreement, don't you?
After continual harassment and oppression from the West (lead by the
USA, with Britain following and the rest of the West tacitly agreeing)
and from Western supported regimes, freedom fighters ("one man's
terrorist is another man's freedom fighter") tried fighting back by
bombing a ship. Since the USA refused to do the right thing and pull
out, they bombed an embassy. Since the USA still refused to listen,
they had no choice but to get serious, and make a bit to hit the USA
where it hurt most - in the purse. It cost thousands of innocent lives
(first westerners in the USA, then Afghans and Iraqis), but that's
collateral damage in the war.
I don't agree with al Quida's aims or their methods - but I don't agree
with the USA's aims or methods either. But I know for sure that the
conflicts will *never* stop until each side starts looking at things
from the other side's point of view. There is little doubt that bin
Laden knows far more about the American way of thinking than vice versa
- he has had plenty of contact with Americans over the last twenty
years, and as a result has been playing Bush for a fool.
Weak responses to terrorist acts have led to terrorist acts of greater
intensity. Intense responses to terrorist acts have, so far, prevented
more terrorist acts on US soil. Seems pretty obvious to me - hit the
bully back in the face, and he backs down.
*Sensible* responses to terrorist acts reduces terrorism. Every
terrorism expert in the world will tell you that the Iraq war has
resulted in far more terrorists, who are better motivated, have better
training opportunities, and have more popular support than before the
war. Arguably the invasion of Afghanistan was a sensible move to combat
terrorism, if it had been carried through properly instead of dropped
half way when Bush changed attention to his pet hate.
There are two reasons why there have been no new terrorist attacks in
the USA, and only minor "reminder" attacks in other countries (London
and Madrid victims might not consider the attacks "minor", but compared
to what they could easily have been, they were minor). First, there is
no need - their aim is to economically damage the USA and to alienate it
from its allies. The US administration is currently doing this to
itself at such a rate that al Quida don't want to unbalance it.
Secondly, a major attack on the US would increase sympathy for it, which
would be counter-productive.
If you think that the USA's attack on Iraq has made the USA, or the
world in general, safer in any way, then you really are living in a box.
Al Quida could easily cause all sorts of attacks on the USA if they
choose - the attacks on London were a demonstration of this power.
And for your information, it is the USA who is the bully that was hit in
the face. It hasn't backed down yet - we can only hope that the other
children will have the courage to persuade him to mend his ways before a
victim brings a knife to the schoolyard.
