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.

The Iraqi problem seems to be that no one in Iraq wants to be an Iraqi.
The Sunnis used to run Iraq and they are hopping mad about being invaded – they aren’t clear about what they want but if they ended up with their own country they would have nothing to complain about.
Why not let them have their own nations? Why insist on pasting a constitution on them that is offensive to them and to the rest of the world. I think everyone will agree that a national constitution that enshrines allowing a man to have 4 wives is offensive. It’s offensive to everyone who believes in ‘one man, one woman’ as being a marriage and it is offensive to everyone that would like to have more than 4 wives.
It is a ridiculous proposition to have Great Britain and the United States impose a democracy based on common experiences between them that the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites have never experienced.
Iraq was cobbled together from provinces that had been included in the Ottoman Empire when the British turned out to be victors in World War I. The British then treated Iraq as a province and strongly put down any hint of independence the people might have had. Winston Churchill even advised using gas against the rebels. That is, if you can call people fighting for independence from a brutal empire rebels.
The only reason the United States does not support independence for Kurdistan is because of interference from Turkey. The United States is afraid of Turkey. The Kurds are not. The United States is imposing its will on Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan because of a lack of understanding of the situation.
The backwoods boys from Texas are little interested in the realities in Iraq. They just want the oil.
Iran will be contained by a bunch of greedy and wealthy Kurds and Shiites and the United States can truly say that Iraq has been liberated and our troops can leave.
All it will need is a new name.
Iraq is dead. Long live the KSSA. Kurdish-Shia-Sunni Alliance.

OK,would The Fish and his/her ilk kindly present us with a solution to the middle east crisis,that keeps peace and the necessary oil flowing to the rest of the world.The US cannot just pull out of Iraq without leaving it with stable Govt.

Give us logical and practical solutions without this leftist diatribe of the US being the evil empire that is responsible for all the world's ills.

There has been recent controversy over a band which has been mentioned in several news items and numerous radio talkback shows, particularly on the ABC, which prompted me to investigate what the fuss was about. I read the lyrical content from the band killtv to find a song titled 'war machine'. The lyrics were spot on and it would be well worth your while getting a glimpse of how some of the younger people have perceived this current issue. www.killtv.com.au

Arjay,
The answer to your question” kindly present us with a solution to the middle east crisis, that keeps peace and the necessary oil flowing to the rest of the world.”, may be found in the second post (IE “The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.")

This is something now being realised and stated by the Bush Administration and it’s military juggernaut.

There was also the possibility of using International Criminal Court. But this would be a bit tricky. The International Criminal Court can try those suspect of carrying out crimes against humanity, and there would be plenty of evidence of this being carried out by the Hussein regime. However there is the very real possibility that the war in Iraq has been an illegal war, and it has resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocent civilians. Because of this, politicians such as Bush, Blair, Howard etc could also be tried for ordering an illegal war (which would be interesting).

In retrospect, it may have been better to try the Hussein regime in the International Criminal Court first (which I understand could have been done in the absence of accused), then invade Iraq after that if necessary.

But the war in Iraq should have been a last resort option after all other options had been tried, which I don’t think it was.

Timkins I agree with you that the Us should never have gone into Iraq.

The reality is here.The left blindly call for the immediate withdrawl of Coalition troops,but offer us no practical solutions.The UN is gutless corrupt and useless.Neither the likes of Saddam or Robert Mugabe would pay the slightest attention to any international court.They only understand the power of force.

What practical solutions do you have to keep the peace in The Middle East which owns 65% of the world's oil? Sure the US foreign policy has been flawed,and they conducted a war on false intelligence.The damage is done.What would you do next in terms of policy and practical actions?

If you insist on understanding the current situation in Iraq, then ask yourself this very bold question: do you really believe that the Iraqis today are better off than they were under Saddam? I have met many Iraqis who claim that their standard of living and their safety has been sorely compromised by the American occupation. Arjay, how would you feel if American troops stormed into Australia and "liberated" us so that our resources could be managed according to American needs, not Australian needs. This is in essence what has happened in Iraq, and the American military testsorone approach doesn't work in a society that is thousands of years old as opposed to a few hundred. Of course the United States, and the entire coalition should pull out of Iraq and leave the Iraqis to work out what they want in their own country - including what they choose to do with the oil.

FISH.... that (to be blunt) is a totally stupid question.

You and all of us know only too well that the sabotage and mayhem being inflicted on Iraqis BY IRAQIS and outside Jihadists, is responsible for the problems with Standard of living.

You should also be prepared to admit that its not a 'one size fits all' There are areas where things are MUCH MUCH better, where the insugency is less effective or under control. and of course, in the Sunni Triangle where the formerly privileged minority who have the most to LOSE by a fair society are kicking and screaming and bombing and maiming purely to regain that lost privilege.

The insurgency is NOT about 'nationalism' its about ETHNO CENTRISM i.e. "Sunni's will rule"ism

How you can be so blind amazes me.

You should also know enough about history to recognize that where there is a multi ethnic society, the best form of social order is one imposed from outside, or from a prevailing /majority which rules benevolantly. The Sunni minority did NOT do that, they ruled for THEM.

Arjay,
I remain optimistic regards the International Criminal Court (ICC). Organisations such as the UN Security Council are often political, as various despots and autocratic regimes can be protected by the politics within those organisations. The ICC has only just started, but it is based more on law rather than politics, and I see that the UN Security Council has even referred a case to the ICC. http://www.icc-cpi.int/cases.html
So there is a ray of hope that the various despots throughout the world can be brought to heal through the ICC, if the ICC is given sufficient support and resources.

In his speech, the US general said “more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military,". What he left out was “legal”, and of course the US has been rather obstructionist in the development of the ICC, because it feels that some of it’s own people could be put on trial (eg Kissinger).

What to do now in IRAQ. I would think it best to following the current US plan of gradual withdrawal leaving behind some military bases, but any further flair up’s or the possibility of civil war occurring in Iraq, then both the ICC and the UN should become involved, not just the US and some allies it has rounded up (including Australia).

I also think it necessary for the UN to become involved in helping to establish more democracy in places such as Afghanistan, rather than leaving that country in a mess or under US control also.

In regards to oil, it is running out in the middle East, with nations such as Syria, Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia reaching peak, so there will have to be programs undertaken in many countries to reduce dependency on oil.

May not be too difficult. I have seen estimates that if people in the US turned down their domestic hot water heater thermostat a few degrees, wore more thermal underwear to work instead of relying on central heating, and took the bus more often rather than driving their own cars, then the US would not need Iraq oil.

"We, the people on the ground, the innocent civilians, the foot soldier sent to fight, the emergency workers who have to clear up the corpses, deserve to be clearly told why we are fighting, why we are in danger.

Once the “other side” reveals both themselves and their demands, we, the people of the democracies, can then decide if we can live with a negotiated peace or if we will choose to go to war."

There is clearly two battle fronts. Islam and its prophets and the West and its profits.

Attack, being natural to expansionist goals, is the modus operandi of both Islam and the West. Sometimes this attack can be active - Iraq etc, or passive - look at the demographic realities that will face Europe as its immigration 'policies' come to fruition in the next couple of generations.

The irony for the West is that it has practiced homogenocide through contraception & abortion as well as promoting environmental and social degradation in pursuit of materialism and individualism. So who will win these wars and on what basis? Will the dominant culture also be the culture that has most to offer?

As the non terrorists (christians) were the first to invade a terrorist (muslim) nation (Iraq 1991) maybe they should be the ones who take in lead in making Peace.

Imagine in 20 yrs from now that Australia possesses 70% of the world's uranium and the rest of the world can no longer burn fossil fuels.

Now due to religious evangelism,the Catholics of NSW are fighting with the Church of England in Victoria and the Baptists of South Australia.Due to the war supplies of Uranium to the rest of the world are cut drastically.

Is China and India our new world powers going to sit idely by and wait for us to get our act together?No one wants to steal our uranium,they just want to buy it at market value,but we are too involved in our stupid religious wars.

Do we have a responsibility to the rest of the world because they will surely perish without us,or can we rightfully scream racist and say to hell with the rest of the world,our self destruction is more important.

Would China and India be justified in invading Australia and setting us straight?

Sure the US has made a mess of the Middle East,but the rest of the planet rely on them for energy for industry and agriculture.It is about survival.

I like the ideas presented in this article, especially giving the terrorists or their representatives a proper hearing. And I too would like to know if it is finite.

I would also like to see on a program such as Insight, SBS, a proper discussion concentrating on the aussie muslims point of view of what they believe the terrorists want and how we can solve it, and also how we can solve it within the context of Australia's needs as well. It was obvious from Insight's program the other night that oz muslims are dying to discuss or justify the terrorists point of view. So lets give them a proper hearing once and for all.

Arjay - you also make a good point: The need to survive is what makes the world go around. It's easy to be PC when life is comfortable and you're confident about your future.

Minuet,it's funny that you should mention the Insight Programme.I was there and it was good to see the Muslim women having a positive imput.They are between a rock and a hard place.Educated Muslim women want to enjoy the freedoms of democracy and still feel accepted by their own culture.They are just as repulsed by the nutter hard liners as us.

The major dilemmas are the diversity of interpretations of the Koran,the egotistical male dominance of their culture,and a belief system based on superstition and heresay rather than facts ,logic or scientific method.It is a recipe for chaos,hate and war.

It is time the Muslims took a step back from religion as do most other cultures in the world today.Religion gives us emotional support,while logic and science helps us to cope with reality and improve our circumstances.While the positive values of religion can be reflected in our political sphere,the lores,practises and superstitions should be excluded.

Arjay

You said >>The major dilemmas are the diversity of interpretations of the Koran,the egotistical male dominance of their culture,and a belief system based on superstition and heresay rather than facts ,logic or scientific method.It is a recipe for chaos,hate and war.<<

As opposed to the egotistical male dominance of western culture? Just look at the comments posted by the seriously misogynistic christians to this forum.

As an outsider, many muslim women do feel, as you said, between a rock and a hard place.

Women are still treated as second class citizens the world over. The physical act of wearing a hijab simply makes it more obvious - it takes a lot of courage too. Even more courage than to wear metal studs like I do - I'm just regarded as a freak, but Muslim women are regarded as the enemy.

But otherwise, you make some good points and power to you for attending the debate.

The positive values of religions such as tolerance, compassion, charity and love are universal human values that should be encouraged. To respond with hate filled vitriol, as so many here are doing is simply stoking the fires of terrorism and prove why we need to rethink our strategies.

Xena,you are right,but I'm no bleeding heart lefty.If SBS or the ABC really want help stop this insanity they should do a serious drama about the issues of war in the Middle East and the social problems confronted in Aust by the various groups here.It must be honest and a warts and all series.It would be a chance to portray the political,economic and social problems that the world faces because the Middle East controls 65% of the world's oil.This is the reality that even the Bush Administration fails to acknowledge.

Can we however rely on SBS and Aunty to provide us with a balanced view of the world,rather than portraying the US and Anglo Australians as evil colonial conquerers?

The industrial,scientific and technical revolution began in Europe and the US.On average the Anglo Saxion culture has been very benevolent in passing on new technology in the form of medicine and food to poor countries.

A drama confronting both personal and international dilemmas could enlighten us all.

Arjay – don’t wait for ABC/SBS – check out movies made by people from the middle east.

This movie should be on at an arthouse cinema near you. Check it out.

Excerpt from Phillipa Hawker’s review.

'Turtles Can Fly' is set on the border between Iran and Turkey, just before the recent invasion of Iraq. Its principal characters are Kurdish children, from teenagers to toddlers, homeless and seemingly orphaned, refugees who are living in a state of uncertainty, but have found themselves a terrible kind of security and income: they scavenge mines, and sell them. Some of the scavengers have already lost limbs to the mines and they are among the most skilful retrievers.

Presiding over them is a boy known as Satellite (Soran Ebrahim) an enterprising, loquacious bespectacled boy who organises gangs of children to forage among the mines and then negotiates the selling price. He rides around on a bike, hectoring, hustling.
His nickname comes from his ability to haggle for and set up satellites dishes for the local communities, who are increasingly anxious to find out what's happening in the world beyond, even if it means risking the incursion of unwanted Western TV decadence into their lives: realising that a war is threatening them, they want news, even if it is a language they cannot understand.
Into the camp come newcomers: Hyenkov (Hirsh Feyssal), who has no arms, but seems to have an uncanny prescience, an ability to anticipate danger; his sister, Agrin (Avaz Latif) the haunting young girl of the opening sequence, whom Satellite is immediately drawn to; and their brother, Risa (Abdol Rahman Karim) a blind toddler, who clings to them both, but whom Agrin seems to shun, for reasons we will later discover.

There is a double sense of certainty and uncertainty in what we see: we know, after the opening flash-forward of the film, where Agrin's despair has led her, and we are aware, as viewers, that what the villagers anticipate - bombs, troops, a US invasion - will happen.

Cheers