"Conversely - and as the London bombings seem to demonstrate - a war on terror simply makes the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" a greater terrorist target."
No, no, the argument is that it's creating more terrorists, and it is, and better trained ones. The greater terrorist target is a result of the war, but not the important one.

"It assumes that Al-Qaida has limited objectives, and that it will therefore respond in kind to conciliatory gestures,"
Again, no. It assumes that whatever is creating and allowing terrorism will be fueled by the Muslims suffering unnecessarily as a result of the war and the way it is being carried out.

"and its mystifyingly mild responses to the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, all indicated its determination not to offend the Muslim world."
This is in part true, but it also took quite a while to determine who did it. Also, Clinton was being thoroughly attacked, unlike Bush he did not have support for large scale military actions.

And let's not forget the complete lack of a response in taking out Al-Zarqawi when Bush had the chance, in following Clarke's suggested anti-terrorism operations and the great distraction that is the war on Iraq.

"Two aircraft flying into the World Trade Centre a year later."
But didn't the withdraw happen after the initial Afghan war? And hadn't the plot been planned for sometime?

"that seeks nothing less than a restoration of the Islamic empire from the early Middle Ages,"
Yeah, we know this is what Al-Qaeda wants, Al-Qaeda (which was a rather small group until the US started saying that every other group was connected to it) is merely a symptom, no one is suggesting appeasing Al-Qaeda or appeasing "Islam". Try to look at the big picture. You can't meet Al-Qaeda head on, Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda until the US allowed it and the flypaper theory is stupid, dangerous and of course, not working.

Deuc
Ater all that, I'm not sure what you are actually getting at.

I found the article reasoning almost flawless. But I think the emphasis was not sufficient.

'Al Qaeda' is just one expression of militant Islam on the war path to 'finish' what they were prevented from doing at Tours by Charles the Hammer and in the Balkans by others.

Deuc, I keep harping, that the problem is Islam itself and its world view. Forget my ChristianConservatism , and just take the arguments on merit. (or lack thereof)

This article may have tried to put an 'academic/socially responsible' face on Islam, but my recent experience with a couple dogs shows the problem. I go for a regular walk at a Melbourne Water retarding basin. (watch the smart comment :) I often encounter friendly dogs in my walk, but the other day, a Rotweiler used as a guard dog in an adjacent property, escaped, and went for me. Its not the border collies, Labradors or Jack Russels which will go for us, its the Islamic version of the Rotweiler which drives the agenda.

I looked at the article in the Age, and the mentality of those young 'immigrants' of Islamic faith was full-on and chilling.

The Brits had talks with the 'Islamic leaders' and asked "What can we do to help you fix this" they explained about 'dissillusioned young muslims' (i.e. about Israel/palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan) So, they basically said "Its your fault, get out of our pet terror training grounds".

The US involvement in Iraq, is as much Strategic as Oil related. Pakistan has Nukes and a seething mass or extremists held back only by Musharraf.

I hope that all of we westerners will review history and then do some serious thinking about our own convictions. As a Christian, I hope all of us could KNOW what we stand for, and why. Without a spiritual and moral foundation we will in Christs words "build our home on the sand, and when the storm comes, it will fall"

When considering the legality (or even moral right) of the US to lead an invasion of Iraq, there are some interesting points being raised in the “World Tribunal on Iraq”

“The Tribunal will consist of three days of hearings investigating various issues related to the war on Iraq, such as the legality of the war, the role of the United Nations, war crimes and the role of the media, as well as the destruction of the cultural sites and the environment.” http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?

But this particular article raises the issue of when did this “war on terrorism” actually begin. Was it after 9/11, or before. And if it is a “war on terrorism”, then who are the opposing forces.

This term “war on terrorism” seems to a propaganda type term that was first used by Bush, similar to the “war on drugs”, and prior to that there was the “cold war” etc. But from the US perspective, this present “war” is beginning to become a “war on Islam”, or a “clash of civilisations”, and the hunting down of Ossam bin Laden and Al Queada is somewhat secondary.

In fact Ossam bin Laden and Al Queada are often referred to as “blowback” from the Afghanistan war, where the CIA trained and supported them to carry out guerrilla type actions against Russian forces, but latter these guerrilla type actions were used against the US and the other countries. See http://www.hevanet.com/peace/cia_trained_bin_laden2.htm

So now we have a situation of the US having to fight against it’s own “blowback”.

Two recent articles are relevant :-
“Bush and Howard committed to troops” http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/598858
“Blair meets with Muslim leaders” http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/598829

I favour the latter approach, and maybe it should have been used much earlier, before the bombs rained down.

Odd how the bombing in London coincided with the UK’s desire to withdraw it’s troops from Iraq, or maybe not that unusual.

While this essay shows journalistic flair – hence “extreme critics” and “chilling” it tends to drift away from what motivated 4 Muslim Englishmen from blowing themselves up in London. Instead it moves towards a well trod American debate over hawk/dove foreign policy approaches.

On 14 March 2004 AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty spoke to Jana Wendt over the similar occurrence in Madrid “The reality is, if this turns out to be Islamic extremists responsible for this bombing in Spain, it's more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq.”

Now, I don’t think this statement makes Mr Keelty an “extreme critic of the US-led war on terror” rather it stems from a concern that (typically) young Muslims in some western countries may resent the presence of their national troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Through sometimes strong religious feeling and often a young person’s desire for danger and glory they wish to hurt the Western countries they live in, as an act of revenge – eye for an eye.

Its not clear that large western armies occupying (or liberating?) distant Muslim countries will quash the resentment of these young men. One aim of the occupation, instilling western style democracy (in Iraq), is remote and counter productive. “Western democracy” is probably alarming to many “radical” and “conservative” Muslim countries (eg Saudi Arabia - arguably current and former Saudi’s are the largest financial and “manpower” supporters of international terrorism).

Attempting to remove Muslim fanatism (or Muslim patriotism depending on one’s point of view) through armed force in Muslim countries unfortunately will not prevent some young Muslim lads in Melbourne or Sydney from emulating the London bombers.

It would appear they might not need Al-Qaida, or other international terrorist links, to achieve this. The Oklahoma City or some other “western” bombers did not need such a connection. Understanding and “keeping the finger on the pulse” at home is preferable to foreign (ad)ventures.

Boaz, sorry for my previous disjointed post, there were so many details in the article I found to be wrong, misleading or incomplete.

The London bombings are not a response to the Iraq war, that much of the article is true. And it is not wrong to say that because Al-Qaeda has unlimited objectives it is wrong to appease them, or that it is wrong to ignore terror threats simply to avoid offending Muslims. Global pre-emption is required. Such things are clear and indisputable.

But I'm sure the article is not simply meant to point out the obvious; the title, and the opening & concluding paragraphs show otherwise. The aim is to counter critics of the Iraq war, whom the author assumes are critics of TWOT; which is false and obtuse. The author would like to show that the Iraq war is necessary and beneficial, and crucial to TWOT, but makes points utterly unconnected with Iraq. Getting out of Iraq is not about appeasing militant Islam, it is about stopping the breeder reactor we built and are feeding.

It is a dream to think that rules will be relevant forever, and many of Islam's rules are outdated like the old Mosaic law or ancient Roman law. Strict, seemingly eternal, religious rules such as those that exist in Islam make it easy for power to be controlled by those who favour cultural stability, the old rules, over principle and substance. This is universal. There is an unfortunate irony in your quote from Jesus, that Muslims stuck in the storm are encouraged to build upon the older, stable foundations that they perceive in fundamentalist Islam. It's not liberal Muslims that are terrorists, although some may be insurgents, but conservatives. I doubt liberal Muslims would have any problem coexisting with non-Muslims, but they have a systemic disadvantage within Islam that has not been removed through change as it has in other religions. Our imprudent acts make it more difficult for reform movements to grow and instead provide support for militant groups and fundamentalist ideology; but reversing this won't end fundamentalism.

Deuc,

Nice to see some balance on this topic, which is refreshing.

You say that "the author would like to show that the Iraq war is necessary and beneficial, and crucial to TWOT, but makes points utterly unconnected with Iraq."

There is one problem with this - I've had a quick look through the piece and can't find the word "Iraq" in it anywhere. Thus, I think that the the link between Iraq and the war on terror clearer in your response than it is in the article.

Perhaps this is an assumption - not an unreasonable one, I might add -but I think it detracts from your critique.

And this is not an ideologically driven response, as the jury is out on Iraq for me. I reckon that the obvious mistruth between justification before and after the Iraq invasion, (and my suspicion over US motives regarding oil) has to be balanced against the fact that the world has one less dictator, with a clear tendency for aggression, who at some time at least, seemed to possess weapons of mass destruction.

The perils of being a fence-sitter...

Good on ya Deuc, as the other poster said. ditto.

Let's scrutinize the one point about 'Islam' and its laws/scriptures, in relation to 'modernizing' or changing.

Let me first though, make a point about the Christian faith. Since Christ is the fulfillment of the law, the guiding approach/modus operandi of all Biblical Christians, will be (or should be) the 'relationship' with Him. As Paul said "For me, to live is Christ, to die is gain" (Phillipians) and "It is no longer 'I' who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Galatians)-its the concept of the exchanged life. One more :) be patient.

"For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son...

so that in us, the righteous requirements of the law, might be met in us."

All I'm saying there, is that its about 'relationship' not 'regimentation'.

Hence, I am always comparing in my mind, and heart the Islamic approach which even tells you how to wipe your butt :) i.e. a law for all human behavior/activity. "legalism" at its worst.

By now u might be forgiven in thinking this was a 'quick bible bash' but now to my point. Islam rules by Sharia- i.e. Law.
I strongly urge you mate, to explore some Islamic literature,(just suft a bit) and it will become abundantly clear very quickly that the Quran (and the hadith not far behind) are the 'be all and end all of Gods final communication to man' in their view. The whole Islamic state from top to bottom will be based on that foundation.

"liberal/moderate" Muslims are mostly:

1/ Minorities in other countries.
2/ States which have close and dependant economic ties/fear military superiority from the USA. (e.g Saudi Arabia)
3/ States which have 'friendly' (though unpopular) heads of state (Pakistan)

In all these, the true agenda drivers are lurking just below the surface, they who aspire to Sharia in all countries.

Hence, our strategic presence in Iraq etc and justification for exerting extended control. Same old x 2 :)

As usual, the commentaries in these postings appear to deal with specifics rather than the root cause of Islamic terrorist attacks against the West. Some even focus on the Western movement of the Turkish Ottomans, Islamic remnants still evident causing the recent Balkan wars, the local Islamics suffering almost total genocide.

However, such wars are only a side issue as concerns terrorist attacks against the West, as any political philosopher will relate. It is believed the best term pertaining to the cause of today's terrorism is "blowback", actually a payback term first used by the CIA, who did warn as far back as the 1970s that their undercover murderous tactics not only against the Middle East Arabs but also in black Africa and South America were expected to cause problems in the future.

Just putting ourselves in Islamic shoes should make us far less shocked or surprised about the hatred of Muslims against the US and us Australian allies today. A letter in yesterday's West Australian newspaper, termed George Bush and Co barefaced liars concerning US troops moving out of Iraq and leaving the people in sole possession, when the Americans have already constructed at least five military fortress reminding one of the Christian castles of the Crusades.

You could bet your bottom dollar that democracy in Iraq will be a colonialist-style guided one, which these days can operate from even a couple of aircraft carriers with guided missiles at the ready. If only that rotten crowd in the White House would be truthful and stop misleading the Iraqis, and even the Australian public with hopeful but false reports.

The latest reports indicate that four of the London bombers may have been tricked into blowing themselves up with what they thought was a timer. If this is so then it tells us two things.

1) That the supply of fanatics willing to seek martyrdom may not be as abundant as first thought. These guys had to be tricked into doing the job. If this is the case then the deployment of troops to Iraq, as bait for would be bombers from the rest of the region, appears to be working. They were attracted to a more accessible target but have died in greater numbers and a lot more cheaply than the 9/11 culprits.

2) The supply of "bomb mules", especially in the western islamic community, is likely to dry up even more once it is made widely known that they are likely to end up very dead very quickly. This particular tool in the Al-Qaeda arsenal can be substantially negated by information, market knowledge. They face the classic problem faced by spivs and liars the world over, an absence of repeat business.

Is it possible that many of the suicide bombers in Iraq, especially those targeting fellow muslims, have actually been tricked into killing themselves too?

There are two significant documents so far not quoted that contribute some evidence to this debate.

The First is Robert Pape's book 'Dying to Win'. While Bush, Blair, Howard and others of the 'Coalition of the Willing' attribute terrorist bombings to crazed religous fundamentalists, Pape's extensive research says otherwise. See for example http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html.

The second is the Chatham House report 'Security, Terrorism and the UK'. For those who do not know CH, here is their brief - "Chatham House is one of the world's leading organizations for the analysis of international issues. It is membership-based and aims to help individuals and organizations to be at the forefront of developments in an ever-changing and increasingly complex world."

The CH report makes a strong case linking the terrorists bombings to Britain's part in the 'war on terrorism'. See http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/niis/BPsecurity.pdf.

I'm inclined to listen to the results of quality research.

Blatant

The main lesson from the London bombings is that we in the west have a fifth column in our midst. This will either be eliminated by the muslim community, or we will do it for them.

The second thing that is relevant for Australia is the question as to whether our participation in the war in Iraq will make terrorist attacks more likely. The answer to that is that we were attacked in Bali in 2002, before Iraq took place. The rationale then was given as our action in East Timor. You can only be condemned once.

The real question is not whether there is better or worse security - that is entirely subjective and politically driven - the real question facing Blair is whether the war(s) has/have been worth the increased risks. I think that's a tough call? Being British PM is a tough trade if you ask me - do you fancy being Blair next week? Apart from Gordon - not many want that level of stress!

aeonblueapocalypse, yes I was assuming he was talking about Iraq. The only direct mention was about the coalition of the willing, but even now I find it hard to accept that Iraq wasn't the underlying issue. I don't know how references to appeasement, conciliation and facing Al-Qaeda head on would otherwise fit; unless a naturally doomed military only solution was being advocated. Similarly for a lack of cooperation with Islamic nations, which in my opinion is essential to a successful end. The fundamentalists don't care if we look weak because they will keep trying anyway, but the sympathisers will look at our aggression and find a need to support extremist groups.


Boaz, I wasn't expecting you to be so happy with my post, considering my general indictment of conservatism. As redneck put it elsewhere, Islam is a complete social system and hence mere statements of principle wouldn't be enough. Would you deny a similarity here with Mosaic law?

I have actually done some study relating to the sources of Muslim law, enough to know that there is a large amount of diversity among Sunnis alone, and that the number of accepted hadiths varies among the schools. In places of relatively poor hygiene and education the toilet-hand rule is rather useful, and remember it is a hadith, ie. not the word of god but a tradition of the prophet. The Koran may be all of God's direct communication, but that doesn't mean it is exhaustive. Is Islam in need of reform? Yes, is it fundamentally different from other religions before their modern changes? No.

In this atheist's view you overestimate the power of religion to affect behaviour significantly and en masse, ignoring other cultural factors and individual ideology/psychology. I think your views on the the presence of liberal minded people is rather askew, they can't all be conservatives, relatively speaking. Liberals may not be the current "agenda drivers", but things change and they would not be without influence. For all we know, drastic underlying social change is occuring, but its nature limits description & publication here in the west.

BUSH, BLAIR AND HOWARD LIED TO GET THEIR WAR IN IRAQ!

Admit it people, they LIED!

Remember the endless reports of nukes, biological and chemical weapons that could be launched in 45 minutes resulting in the "smoking gun" mushroom clouds. All lies!

Every so called "irrefutable" fact that was produced to prove that we had to invade has been subsequently ridiculed as preposterous.

When Clinton lied about receiving fellatio from an intern the American media fell over itself in its haste to support impeachment. Now Bush has been outed as misleading the world into invading a country which obviously had no WMD's and had nothing to do with 9-11 (his admission!) and this results in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, we don't hear SQUAT!

Imperial aggression and occupation of Middle Eastern countries is the underlying cause of hatred towards the Western world.

We've been Neo-conned!

As usual the left continues to cloud, and misjudge what should be such a simple issue. Useless peripheral arguments about the war in Iraq, have done more to distract attention from terrorism than the war itself.
Firstly the war in Iraq has not encouraged terrorism. Al Qaeda and associated organisations get all their encouragement from extreme, bigoted, and fundamentally flawed readings of Islamic law. They exploit their religion to justify enforcement of their own beliefs on others. The United States, U.K, and Australia by standing up to this nonsense have undoubtedly antagonised Al Qaeda but what was the other option-appeasement?
Secondly if commentators wish to start talking about the illegality of wars perhaps they should get their facts straight. Any objective public international law expert will tell you the war conducted in Afghanistan was far more dubious legally than the one in Iraq. As a person with a legal background myself I am happy to admit that the law often finds itself in a static, unreactive state in any case. What happened in Iraq and Rwanda for that matter, as well as what is happening in Darfur only prove this case in fact.
Thirdly how can anybody seriously suggest that Sadam Hussein, and terrorism were not inextricably linked!? The man sponsored suicide bombers in Palestinian Territories, was closely linked with the Sudanese radicals while Bin Laden trained there, and had Zarqawi treated for injuries in Iraq after he was injured in Afghanistan! With all the fixation about weapons of mass destruction (Iraqi Kurds can testify to their existence at some stage anyway) the left has conveniently overlooked these facts

"They exploit their religion to justify enforcement of their own beliefs on others."
And you don't think the Iraq war has made this much easier?

"Thirdly how can anybody seriously suggest that Sadam Hussein, and terrorism were not inextricably linked!?"
Inextricable: So intricate or entangled as to make escape impossible. Difficult or impossible to disentangle or untie. Unavoidable; inescapable. (From dictionary.com)

This is no minor contention, and is a standard far higher than simply support for terrorism. Your three assertions meant to provide a connection aren't enough to bolster that claim. Saddam was not alone in supporting Palestinian terrorists, or more correctly the families of suicide bombers, and that is not the same form of terrorism that threatens the West.

Perhaps you can explain exactly what you are referring to re: Sudanese radicals, because you seem to be saying that he knew some guys from Sudan when Bin Laden was there; which shows absolutely nothing.

"Zarqawi treated for injuries in Iraq after he was injured in Afghanistan!"
US intelligence now seems to have doubts about that event, and it does not show a government connection to Zarqawi.

"With all the fixation about weapons of mass destruction (Iraqi Kurds can testify to their existence at some stage anyway) the left has conveniently overlooked these facts"

It wasn't the left that made WMDs the focus of the war, and let me also point out that there is evidence that the Kurds were actually gassed by Iran, but yes we know Iraq once had WMDs. (Queue picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.) I'm not saying that Saddam has never sought some connections with terrorists, rather that he had no real active connection or WMD risk and that hence Iraq was not a terrorist problem until the US made it one.

When someone can tell me who elected Osama Bin Laden into office, will I think he has something to say.

Until then El Qaeda deserves all the sustained attacks on its bases, manpower and resources until it influence is completely erased from the face of the earth.

Just like

The Red Brigades,
Baeder Meinhoff,
IRA,
US or African or Asian based militias,
Palestinian and Israeli supporters of butchery

and every other criminal organisation who thinks that "their way" is divine and paramount and above the voting box.

Only when a person is prepared to debate their view and accept the decision of democratic processes, do they gain the authority to act.

On a recent Lateline programme an American commentator gave the real reason for the shocking human relations now existing between Christianity and Islam. He pointed out that in many ways religion has very little to do with it. He did not mention the term “blowback” but the term itself was originated by the CIA who warned that their tactics against Middle East nations, and certain Third World countries could cause international friction in the future.

The above would not surprise anyone studying International Relations in our universities. As the US commentator pointed out, most Islamic terrorism has been carried out not by poor or destitute Muslims but by the more intellectual and priveleged. Such was proven in 9/11 as well as the recent London bombings, and of course, every one knows bin Laden is related to the most respected of Saudi-Arabian families. .

Many people desperately fed-up with news of Islamic attacks, would say either to close down the Humanities areas of our universities or put the curriculums under surveillance, as was done in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

However, this would not get to the core of the problem, but only make it worse, because former students who had learnt in the universities about “blowback” and “payback” might also need to be quietened down with a warning they could be penalised.

On the other hand, this could give certain of our more zealous leaders a kind of satisfaction that the mention of a car-boot holding a bomb far bigger than one to fit a haversack, might keep our public more patriotic and forced to respect those already in power.

As intimated by the American commentator - part of the answer could be for both America and Britain to get out of Middle East territory admitting they’d only been in there since WW1 mostly for oil and strategem. But such thoughts could be only pipe dreams, and we can now be concerned about the well-publicised US promise of a New World Order as well as the Project for the New American 21st Century (PNAC).

Deuc. When Sadam paid the families of men connected to Islamic Jihad, and The Martyrs Brigades to murder in shopping malls it is impossible to 'disentangle' him from or find an 'escapable' connection between Hussein and terrorism.
Secondly stating that bombings in Israel are 'not the same form of terrorism that threatens the west' is inexplicable. The intelligence community has ample evidence that indicates the global connection and cooperation between radical Islamic terrorists. So much so it is considered a given. Besides how often have we heard Bin Laden refer to 'jews' and 'crusaders' in the same press release?
Thirdly Bin Ladens' stay in Sudan was punctuated by numerous visits from Iraqi intelligence. Records exist to prove these visits took place. The fact nobody can find evidence suggesting Hussein officially sanctioned such ventures is not surprising. In any case nobody did anything in Iraq without Sadam's approval for obvious reasons. Please stay posted because I'll supply the name of the Sudanese cleric who acted as liason for Bin Laden in Sudan, and was a trusted mentor of Hussein as soon as possible.
Finally Zarqawi wandered in and out of Iraq so many times, Jordans' king officially sought the extradition of him just months before the war started. He wasn't there bathing in the Euphrates either. As time has told he was establishing an armed resistance that threatens/aims to pitch arab against arab. Do you think this was possible without Husseins'knowledge? Not exactly an original tactic either is it?
As for Iran gassing the Kurds that is the first I've heard of it.Perhaps it is of similar validity to Husseins' well publicised contention that CIA agents flew planes into the 'twin towers'!

"When Sadam paid the families of men connected to Islamic Jihad, and The Martyrs Brigades to murder in shopping malls it is impossible to 'disentangle' him from or find an 'escapable' connection between Hussein and terrorism."

AFAIK it was only post-hoc compensation to the families of terrorists, ie. moral support for their actions but not funding them or giving them practical assistance. If that is enough for them to be "inextricably linked" then it is not important that they were. What matters is whether Saddam was willing and able to aide global terrorism to such an extent that the costs of war were justified.

"Secondly stating that bombings in Israel are 'not the same form of terrorism that threatens the west' is inexplicable."
No it is easy to explain, it is an attack directed against a single nation rather than Western nations and values in general. Cooperation between Islamists is no suprise, but Saddam wasn't one so unless you have evidence he knew that money was going to be directed towards attacks on western interests then this argument will go nowhere.

"Besides how often have we heard Bin Laden refer to 'jews' and 'crusaders' in the same press release?"
Relevance?

"Thirdly Bin Ladens' stay in Sudan was punctuated by numerous visits from Iraqi intelligence."
Perhaps you are referring to the '94 meeting that didn't result in any actual cooperation?

"In any case nobody did anything in Iraq without Sadam's approval for obvious reasons."
Except in US controlled areas, such as where Zarqawi's base was, do you have any evidence that Zarqawi was freely moving about Iraq proper? Of course, Zarqawi isn't the best example re: using terrorism as a justification for war, considering the many opportunities to kill Zarqawi turned down by the Bush administration prior to the war.

"As for Iran gassing the Kurds that is the first I've heard of it.Perhaps it is of similar validity to Husseins' well publicised contention that CIA agents flew planes into the 'twin towers'! "
I said evidence, the facts are still in issue and it probably was Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Comedy Relief Time.
London now has Sewer Side Bombers that specialise in blowing up toilets.Upon reaching their heaven,the sight of 72 virgins made them so excited that they mistook detonators for Gerbals and it rectum.
by Arjay

Now Graham,I think you need a joke section on topical events.It would definitenly spriten up interest.

A newspiece from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4711003.stm

"Pakistan clerics explain 'jihad'

"Pakistan's top Muslim clerics have said it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to preach the real concept of jihad, or holy war, to young Muslims.

"The situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine is radicalising young people," says Mufti Rafi Usmani, one of Pakistan's highest-ranking clerics.

"And an angry young man is in no-one's control," he said.

Other high-ranking Islamic scholars have also endorsed these views."

I thought that there have been two gulf wars.
The first destroyed most of the infrastructure in Iraq.
This was followed by 12 years of sanctions, which prevented Iraq from repairing its water treatment and sewerage plants.
Then followed the second gulf war which is still in progress.
All of the above actions resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians, many of whom hated Sadam Hussein.
Killing civilians is terrorism even if it is carried out by members of the coalition forces.
How can we have a war on terrorism waged by terrorists on both sides of the fence?
What comes around goes around. If the response to terrorism is terrorism then there can be no end to conflict and killing.
The terrorists are winning the war as we have seen by the recent action by the British police, (holding a person down and then shooting them) shows that we are decending to a level not seen in Britain for over a hundred years.
When George Orwell wrote 1984 I doubt that he meant it to be used as a text book.

Deuc. I am almost certain that there is nothing I can write nor evidence I can produce that will change your opinion. I respect that, and at the risk of sounding cliche, thankfully we live in a country where we are all allowed to discuss these issues.
However I fear that you have become preoccupied with discussing semantics. For example if "actual cooperation" and not just meetings had taken place between Iraqi intelligence and Bin Laden throughout the 1990's I fear that September 11 may have happened ten times over. Yes wars are horrible. Yes wars should be avoided. But Sadam had 15 years to comply with the UN (not the US).
If we transpose that timeline to North Korea for example, evidence suggests the regime there will have killed hundreds of thousands before the world provides tangible relief to that population. The UN's supposedly effective sanctions killed more people in Iraq than any war there, and North Korea is travelling down a similar road.
At this point we (humankind) just have to hope North Korea doesn't start meeting with terrorists. That would really be embarrassing for the UN. "Actual cooperation" probably already exists but the UN still stands back and waits.
By the way the relevance of Al Qaedas' "jews and crusaders" comment is that Bin Laden (and Islamic terrorists) don't distinguish between the two. Similarly I doubt you will find any Islamic Fundamentalist who would be willing to attack Israel but not America. In addition Hassan al-Turabi chaired the PAIC in Sudan, and instigated an attempted revolution in Sudan. He has recently been released from jail in an attempt by authorities to appease the muslim population in Sudan. He openly admits to having been close to both Hussein and Bin Laden. Not evidence of "actual cooperation" but if we played a game of logical link the dots I'm sure we would have established a connection.

"Deuc. I am almost certain that there is nothing I can write nor evidence I can produce that will change your opinion."

Well that depends on whether there is evidence to produce, if there is none that shows a significant/material connection with terrorism then you are correct. I am interested in any evidence you have, and I am explicitly asking for it. If a significant link to global terrorism can be shown then I will happily change my position. Semantics issues do exist, but as I said in my last post it is the strength of connection that is important; only if Iraq was a real danger would the war have been justified on the basis of terrorism. Small connections aren't much of a problem, deep links or cooperation would be.

"At this point we (humankind) just have to hope North Korea doesn't start meeting with terrorists."
I think it already would be supporting terrorism, but I don't think there is much risk of NK giving a nuke to terrorists. And there is very little the UN can do now. Military intervention is currently not possible and diplomacy would only involve aiding NK in ways that would assist the totalitarian regime.

"Similarly I doubt you will find any Islamic Fundamentalist who would be willing to attack Israel but not America."
Where the reason for attacking Israel is a religious rather than political motivation then they would probably happily attack the West, but I don't think all suicide bombers are attacking Israel for purely religious reasons.

The sad fact is Americas engagement with Al Qaida is little more than symbolic - and always has been; The move to Afghanistan on the trail of Osama was appropriate but a failure. And again, the US has essentially left Afgahnistan to its own devices with Kabul isolated and the rest of the country still in relative chaos.
The move into Iraq was rooted in the Wests failure to get public enemy number one and the need to get at least one notch on Sherrif Bush's belt and also to exact some revenge on those pesky "towel heads". Apart from the fact Sadaam is a bad guy, all the other justification for going to Iraq has proved to be false. And the role of the US again is half baked - they have a great tendency to police the place during the day and leave the night to the bandits!They are not a good army - just a big one.
Al Quida needs to be engaged but as long as we are committed to the dumb notion of symettrical war fare against a foe spread across the world we will lose.

Peace –

The first Gulf war was embarked upon to reverse the unilateral annexation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein -

A bit like the way WWII commenced with Germany’s Annexation of Poland

The second Gulf War commenced following Saddam Hussein’s continuance to ignore UN resolutions.

As for your statement “The terrorists are winning the war as we have seen by the recent action by the British police, (holding a person down and then shooting them) shows that we are decending to a level not seen in Britain for over a hundred years.
When George Orwell wrote 1984 I doubt that he meant it to be used as a text book.”

The London Bombings and police actions, whilst unfortunately producing the death of an “innocent bystanders”, are exemplary actions which prove the effectiveness of CCTV and the UKs last 40 years experience in dealing with terrorist filth.

You can be as cynical all you wish and whimsical about George Orwell as much as you want but remember – London has lost a lot more “innocent victims” to terrorist bombers of both Fanatical Muslims and Fanatical IRA varieties than it has to police shootings.

I would suggest the idea that the number of arrests and containment of terrorists in the few weeks since London’s most recent atrocities is a cause for pride and relief for law abiding Londoners – and a reason for fear by wannabe terrorists and murderous bombers.

– If I were Osama Bin Laden - I would forget about spreading an undemocratic program of terrorist attrition and look for a very very deep hole to crawl into – before the English police get serious about exterminating him.