----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Rogerson" steve.rogerson@mcr1.poptel.org.uk To: blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:09 AM Subject: [B7L] Re: OT world trade centre

Jonathan Coupe said: "But the US will make every reasonable effort to spare civilian lives, while mounting an effective counter-attack"

I'm puzzled by this staement, because there is no evidence for it. The US has a shameful record of not giving a shit for civilian life when it decides a country is its enemy, From Vietnam to Iraq to Serbia and Kosova and others, it has opted for blanket bombing tactics. In Iraq alone, it is estimated the US killed about 100,000 civilians,

Estimated by who? The Iraqi government, with every interest in inflating their claims, and a moral record that a repel a hyena, only claimed 35,000. The real figure may well have been a fraction of this.

Blanket bombing tactics were used in South Vietnam, they weren't used in any of the other conflicts.(Assuming that you meant the tactic of indiscriminate bombing of large areas.) Believe me; if they had been used, civillian casualties would have been orders of magnitude higher. An arid urbanized country like Iraq, heavily reliant on food imports and vital transportation and water supply systems with a low degree of redenundancy, is almost uniquely vulnerable to bombing aimed at killing civilians. There's a huge difference between the way the US bombed in Vietnam and in Serbia and Kosovo also.

The fear of the rest of the world today is that the US may respond similiarly and respond to a disgraceful and terrible terrorist act by doing something equivalent or worse.

Based on Colin Powell's record, statements, and influence in the administration, this is unlikely.

It is one thing some individual maniac terrorists committing this type of act, it is another thing for a state to do it, and the US has done this in the past. I really hope they won't do it again. If they do, more innocent people will lose their lives. The answer to indiscriminate murder is not indiscriminate murder.

Innocent people have lost their lives. More will probably be killed in the retaliation. But based on the factors referred to above and in my previous post, I believe the indications are that the number of innocent dead will be proportionate to the aim, and that this will be perceived to be so by the world community. The death of a civilian in war is not necessarily indiscrimate murder; sometimes it is a tragedy that cannot be avoided without worse consequences.

In this case, a reponse inadequate to deter future terrorism on this scale is likely to have two consequences.

The first is that such incidents shall be repeated more and more often. Given the increased availabiliy of nuclear weapons and biological warfare materials, and the vulnerability of LPG tankers, airliners, chemical plants, air traffic control systems, and the ease with which mass death can be created in urban centers in a variety of ways, I think we can realistically expect the WTC death toll to be surpassed with horrific ease.

The second consequence to be expected from an inadequate reponse, is pressure for a response on a much larger that would suffice now, especially if subsequent incidents occur. The response to an act of nuclear terrorism especially is likely to be nuclear in nature. Such an exchange could create a pattern of attrocity for the next century on a scale that dwarfs anything we have seen in history.

In an ideal world, it would be possible to bring the perpetrators of this act to justice without killing a single innocent person. But in an ideal world the necessity wouldn't exist. Force, power, and human nature are what they are. The task of decent politicians is do the best they can within the limits of the possible. The indications for the Bush administration - Powell's statements reminding Americans of the need for restraint and emphasizing the longterm, the careful building of a broad alliance, the cautious actions of the Israelis - are are all good.

-Jonathan