Stick to the childrens' stories, Graeme.

It is interesting that with the “war on terror”, very few arrests have actually been made regards the bombings in New York, Madrid, or London.

Also interesting is that the Bush administration is now trying to change the term “war” to that of “struggle”.

“In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the country's top military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice.

Administration officials say the earlier phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.

future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/26/news/terror.php


Perhaps all this has more to do with the fact that the war in Iraq is not going according to original plan, and Bush’s popularity is in decline, from an all time high after 9/11.

I would think the majority of Iraqis don't want to see their people subject to random acts of violence whether coalition forces are or aren't in Iraq, do they get a say on this UN panel? Or is it just the nutjob minority they want everyone either Muslim or dead, many of whom aren't even citizens of Iraq.

Anyone who looks to a corrupt/weak United Nations for a solution to anything has lost me.Just all too simplistic and infantile Graeme.

The battle lines are drawn,we have a choice between Islamic facism of ignorance,violence,hate and supression or continued progress and enlightenment with all it's complexities,insecurities,mistakes and courage to face realities,freedoms and future wonders of the universe to discover.

The war has just begun and it is more of war of religious repression verses scientific and philosophical enlightenment.Free people must have the courage to see this through to the end.We have become weak with our abundant creature comforts and thus have taken our freedoms for granted.

The very least we should do is to honour the memories of those who fought or lost their lives in WW2 by having the courage to tackle this problem head on.

Muslims are not going to change their views,since indoctrination from an early age defies all logic.Unless you are taught the ways of logic and scepticism from an early age, logic means nothing.That is why we place so much importance on Education.

Historical researchers are becoming totally fed up with the argument that the present terror crisis is simply a war about religion. It is only about religion because those whom many call our enemies, the Islamics, hold territories rich in what mostly Western nations are running short of - oil. What can be added, of course, is that the Middle-East, is and even before the thirst for oil, was regarded as the centrepoint of our global surface, and in elitist terms should be owned and run by the world's strongest power, now the United States.

One does not have to be on the side of bin Laden to hold this view, it is simply a view that must be admitted to solve a situation that many researchers believe could go on for years and years to come. The Romans used to solve such problems by total elimination or genocidally as they did to Carthage in North Africa, destroying all buildings as well as people.

But though our modern Pax Romana, might hope to bring on such an elimination, the only alternative for Middle East mastership is the ersatz Middle East democracy the US and its little cohort, Israel are determined to achieve.

A re- strengthened United Nations is capable of solving it, as long as Pax Americana does not again try to run the show. Please might some of you study the works of the great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant who became disgusted with Naoleon after he declared himself emperor, and wrote that from now on to maintain "liberty equality and fraternity", not one man, nor one nation alone can be trusted to preserve perpetual peace.

Graeme courageously raises the fundamental question about a “war on terror’, and that is the dangerous subjectivity of this noun. We do not have to look too far back in history to find one-time “terrorists” who have become legitimate leaders of power such as Nelson Mendala. Indeed the original American revolutionaries were deemed to be terrorists by their then “legitimate” British government. The Australian aboriginals would also be justified in judging white Australians who stole their land and their babies to be “terrorists”.

The danger of this ambiguity is already obvious when one reviews the thread of debate in web postings. Too often the argument about “who is a terrorist” descends into racial and religious profiling where Islamic extremists become the focal point, rather than the root causes of “terrorism”.

The sanctioned murder of an innocent Brazilian by trigger-happy police in the wake of the London bombings is strong testimony to the dangers of a subjective war where a “terrorist” is anyone whom police “think” might be a suspect.