Bali, Terrorism, Iraq, War, My Town

by Max Divergent 6 Replies latest jw friends

  • Max Divergent
    Max Divergent

    A few weeks ago there were heated discussions here along the lines that "If your city was attacked by terrorists, you'd want to attack Iraq too" v's "Iraq hasn't done anything (big) wrong yet, don't invade".

    I'm from Perth, Western Australia and last weekend 30-40 or even more Perth people died in a C4 and (apparently) Napalm car bomb attack at a nightclub in Bali (hence the burns).

    Bali's not Perth, but there are very, very close links between the people of Perth and the people of Bali built over many years, illustrated by maybe a quarter or a third of the fatalities being from Perth.

    For example, I've been there this year, last year and in 1998, and my wife's been there six times more than me. Its our favoured destination and well be there again soon I hope. We've walked past the (now obliterated) Sari Club (SC's) on Jalan Legian many times, although we prefer the SC's Seafood Restaurant up the street. Try the deep fried whole fish with lemon and garlic with a next time you're there...

    But as personal and close as it was to many, I still haven't heard anyone say, "Let's attack Iraq (or anyone else) because there are out of control terrorists in the world and they hurt us in Bali".

    So, I don't believe the argument: "If your city was attacked by terrorists, you'd want to attack Iraq too". There might well be reasons to attack Iraq, but it's nothing much to do with 9/11 or terrorism or responding to the killing of people from your town. That was Afghanistan.

    Salamat pagi, Max

    Edited to replace the ' and " that were lost to the ether...

    Edited by - Max Divergent on 18 October 2002 9:25:49

    Edited by - Max Divergent on 18 October 2002 9:27:43

  • Prisca

    I don't see how the Bali bombings have anything to do with Iraq, but I certainly want to see justice done, by finding those Muslem extremeists who planned this attack, and making them pay for their actions.

    The extremeists who planned the Bali bombing are just as reprehensible as the ones who planned the 9/11 attacks. Nothing will ever bring back those who have perished, but justice needs to be served.

  • Shakita

    Hi Max:

    Australia is on my "to visit one day" list. I would love to come "down under" to see your beautiful place.

    I think the post, even though I didn't respond myself, deals with the revenge factor if you were personnally affected by terrorism. There is an "Ask Marilyn" column in our Sunday paper where the reader asked "What is the difference between revenge and justice?" She answered, "Revenge feels right only to those directly involved. Justice feels right even to outsiders." I think we have to distinquish here what action we feel we must take as a country involving Irag. Here in the US, after 9/11, we were very patient when seeking out justice. Many wanted revenge. The US declared war against terrorism. Terrorism in any form. I am now reading "The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth M Pollack. If you doubt that Saddam is anything but a terrorist, you must read this book. Iraq must have a regime change. If it isn't done NOW, we are probably just biding time. He WILL hold hostage the freedom we all hold dear.

    We are at a point of time that is crucial to all humanity. Terrorism must be fought proactively. We can not sit back and let Saddam acquire even MORE weapons of mass destruction. Because he does have them, has used them, and will use them "at the drop of a hat."

    Someone who HATES PSYCOSADDAM,

    Mrs. Shakita

  • BeautifulGarbage

    A possible invasion of Iraq and the "war" on terrorism is two completely different issues. Though, they may seem to be closely related on the surface, they do require much different responses and plans of action. Or inaction, according to some naysayers.

    Saddam Hussein has been proven to a very ruthless dictator. He has even killed, and attempted to kill, members of his own family. He may "support" terrorists who carry out such actions like what happened in Bali, but he certainly has no direct involvement, if any at all. And even if Bin Laden and Hussein feel a "bond" because they are Arab brothers, and have a common enemy (US), they would destroy each other in a nano second if either one got in the way of the other. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorists are Muslim extremists who desire to kill all non-Muslims (infidels), and return to the middle ages when Islam was in it's glory days. Hussein, on the other hand, though born a Sunni Muslim, is non-practicing. He only uses his connection to Islam to rally support for his regime in the rest of the Arab world. His goal is to dominate the entire region.

    The specific issue in Iraq is that Hussein is known to possess, and have used, chemical and biological weapons. He WILL eventually have nuclear weapons. Inspectors, or no inspectors. When those weapons will have intercontinental capabilities, only time will tell. So, here's the point that everyone needs to ponder very carefully: Given his track record, do you want to deal with Hussein before, or AFTER, he has "The Bomb"?

    Think about it.


    Edited by - BeautifulGarbage on 18 October 2002 13:24:31

  • Shakita


    I agree with everything you said. But, to separate Saddam(who is Iraq) from the other terrorist groups is not clear to me. I am no expert on middle eastern topics. You sound much more informed than I. But when looking up the definition of terrorist in the American Heritage Dictionary, I came up with the following: Terrorist-Noun-One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism-Adjective-of or relating to terrorism, Terrorism-Noun-The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for idealogical or political reasons.

    "A possible invasion of Iraq and the "war" on terrorism is two completely different issues." They are both under the definition of terrorist/terrorism. How can they be different then? Saddam is a terrorist and practices terrorism. The same for any group of terrorists.

    And, now there is North Korea who seems to have some nuclear capability, also. Are they terrorists? No. Unless they start using that nuclear capability to terrorize others. Time will tell there.

    Looks like the world is going to 'hell in a handbasket."

    Just my opinion, of course,

    Mrs. Shakita

  • BeautifulGarbage

    Hey there, Mrs. Shakita!

    In my post I was just trying to separate the issues of terrorist attacks and the possible invasion of Iraq. The two seem to get blended often as if Hussein and Bin Laden are buddies and have a common goal. They do have a common enemy, however, the US.

    Remember when the Soviet Union broke up and chaos reigned because all of those little satellite countries, and their various ethnic groups, began a power struggle among themselves? Well, the same would happen in the middle east if there was no United States to hate and plot against. Various groups and governments would be jockeying for position to dominate the region.

    Because I called Hussein a "very ruthless dictator", doesn't mean he is not a terrorist. The arguments in favor of an invasion revolve mainly around his possession of chemical and biological weapons. And of course, his eventual acquirement of nuclear capabilities, not because he is a terrorist.

    My primary concern with such an invasion is that the US government doesn't seem to have a course of action once Hussein is ousted and what they are going to do with him. Plus, the majority of Iraq follows the Shiite sect of Islam. Saddam, and others that have power, are Sunni. There will be much brutality inflicted upon Sunni Muslims by Shiites, who are thirsty for revenge. Plus, there is the Kurd situation to complicate matters even more.

    So the question is: Why not let the majority rule? Well, that also poses a problem for the US. The problem? Our other nemesis, Iran. The vast majority of Iranians are Shiite and have much sympathy for their oppressed brothers in Iraq. A Shiite government in Iraq would certainly strengthen the ties between the two countries. And Iran is a country that is well known for it's support of terrorism against the US and it's allies.

    What is the answer to this mess? Hell, if I know! That area is such a powder keg that any military action taken is going have it's pluses and it's minuses. It's just trying to get the scales to tip ever so favorably to the former.

    Thanks for posting.


  • unclebruce

    g'day Max,

    ... and did you check out the beautiful Hindu and Budhist culture of the Balenese or just go there for the bellyache? lol

    ps: ever sneak society literiture into Indonesia? Djupura's just forty miles "straight up the beach" said the crusty old watchtower dog to the two young pioneers. "be back in no time on yer motorbikes" The journey was made, the cartons delivered safe, the passport office and the branch overseer remained none the wiser

Share this