Terrorists again?

It does amaze me how logical terrorists are in the countries they select to attack. For the insane madmen they are supposed to be there does seem to be a particularly sharp political edge to their actions. I don't see Norway, Canada, Sweden, Holland, Wales, Scotland in fact the majority of countries suffering terrorism and even less suffering the attentions of Al-Qaeda. So why poor old England? What have we possibly done to deserve such barbaric treatment?

Well I'm not going to say that there is any justification for one murder, even less hundreds as we are told was planned by todays list of suspects. But neither they nor anyone is justified in any murder. Is there one nation who can raise its hand and say with hand on heart that they have not murdered one person in the furthurment of its interests.

Well obviously the terrorists kill civilians while the Axis of Good only kill soldiers who have signed on the dotted line to say that they are allowed to be killed. Again is there any country in the world who can say they have not attacked civilians for military gains? Its a successful strategy. Demoralise your enemy. It tends to be only a last resort however, for example Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Obviously no military would begin their campaign against civilians. So the Axis of Good are basically saying that the terrorists should come out of hiding and fight like men. Put their 1000 or so men armed with kalashnikovs in a field and get them to fight the combined NATO forces. Back in the real world, it is no suprise that the poorly armed, poorly funded, minority forces we are fighting have selected a more successful technique to fight. If only by evolution any other forces would have been carpet bombed out of existence before we even heard of them.

It is also worth considering this. In a democratic country who is to blame for the country's policies. Is it the Army? the politicians? or the people who elected the politicians? Personally I believe in a democratic country I am responsible for my government and my government's policies. That is why election time is SO important. If you pick the wrong guy he might just lead you into a war which is fine when it's several thousand miles away, but when the after shocks come home you change your mind. And that is why terrorists attack civilians to make us change our minds. So it does make political sense also.

Of course the real point is that the terrorists are fighting for the wrong goal, while America and its allies are fighting the right goal. If the terrorists were fighting for the right goal, say insurgency in German during the second world war, we would hail them as heros. Indeed in the event of war like the second world war we need terrorists to distrupt enermy lines (REME I think they are called).

Well I'll say it here I don't think there are any heros in war. All soldiers are murders, it matters not which side they come from. All victims be they "innocent" or "guilty" are wrongfully killed. All politicians or terrorists who use war as a means to achieve their ends are sick to the core. Anyone who joins the army or becomes a terrorist or at any time in their life ever considers killing someone, be it personally or for the country or for the "nation" is sick to the core. It is terrible to see Blair or Bush or Bin Laden or the late Zarqawi thinking how right and justified they are to be playing with peoples lives like pieces on a chess board. Each one of them to differing degrees is a terribly deluded man.

It could all have been so different. I am not a student of history or politics and my opinions from here are irrelevant but can any such educated person not tell me it could not have been different.

What if Palestine had been made for the Arabs and Israel made for the Jews at the same time? What if the Americans had silenced their Jewish lobby and treated the Middle East with the same impartiality as is supposed to been extended by the UN. What if, and this is the most important what if, what if democratically elected politicians were limited to decisions over their electorate and all international decisions were passed by the UN? No one would ever stand for it. It is the job of US and UK elected individuals to change the lives of the billions of people around the world who had no say in their election. If US wants to meddle in Middle East affairs, do it properly - let the Middle East share the US vote too! Its ridiculous. But if we are going to interfer with other people and change their lives, it seems only natural that they will come back eventually and try and change ours.

So the lesson is simple. The better you treat people the better they will treat you. Treating the rest of the world like second class citizens unfortunately is only going to make them hate us. They will come here and have no respect for us, sparking crime rates and bringing our countries down from the inside. And outside they will find every means to hurt us to.

Another angle never even touched on by the press is that these battles are between the elite. Bin Laden is the erant son of Saudi Arabias leading family. He's like Bush jr in the Bush household. He's fighting America because he wants his family to lead Saudi but the US is supporting the House of Saud instead. He'll take any platform to have that fight. The same largely in Africa, or in Serbia. Probably in Chechnya too. On the surface battles happen around discernable differences. Behind the scenes the protagonists are out for personal gains. So I wonder what Bush and Blair aim to get from all this?