Letters to the Editor

• To answer your question, Andrew

  [Read the article: Beyond the Multiplex]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Yes, I think the US is going to have to keep such facilties for the immediate future until some kind of international agreement can be hammered out on how to deal with the phenomenom of the "global terrorist". I do not see this as any different (other than in scale) than what went on in the cold war with the capture and rendention of spies from both sides.

  Is it right or wrong? The answer at this point is that it is grey. The potential for a few people with little scruples but lots of belief to do grevious harm to hundreds or thousands of others through the miracle of modern technology is all too real. And at this point, short of a scorched earth policy, I don't really know how to deal with it - since the ideological basis for these actions is not being addressed seriously by any government on earth as far as I can see.

  As far as the US goes, I just wish we had a special court system to deal with this - a dark one like we have for national security affairs. It is not a good solution at this point, but it would be better than what we have now, and at least it would give some oversight. But at this point, I see much of this fight taking place in the dark places of the world. I do not want to see the attitude of "kill them all and let God sort it out" come to the fore either. Until someone comes up with a better solution than Guantanamo - then hold your nose and let it be.

  Permalink Thursday, June 22, 2006 05:01 PM

• As Usual - more "Mis"Informed Commet

  [Read the article: The Zarqawi effect]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Let's get one thing straight to start with - Zarqawi was scum, human filth and absolutely one of the nastiest examples of human depravity in recent memory. And I do not see one iota of condemnation in this article about this, no mention of his personal snuff videos, barely more than a mention that he thought the Shia were heretics and deserving of slaughter and just a small note that his "followers" killed 60 at weddings in a Jordon hotel. But as usual in one of P Coles rants - "it's all Bush's fault"

  I find the historical narration to be someone selective too - since it seems to omit the small but salient fact that the Sharif of Mecca got his ass run out of Arabia after the Saud family took over and the British installed his 2 sons as the Kings of TransJordan and of Iraq. Maybe the omission was made is because a lot of the Salafist ideology that form the core of nut cases like Zarqawi came out of the Wahabi fueled "revolt" that tossed the Hashemites out of the Hejaz.

  Zarqawi was never really "admired" by the Iraqis either - he was just viewed as "the enemy of my enemy". He was also someone the Sunnis in Iraqi could count on to recruit and deploy a line of brain dead suicide bombers (preferably not Iraqi) to keep up the pressure on the Americans or those uppity Shiites in Iraq that actually wanted to exercise their majority status in the country. I find it telling that the word "betrayed" was used to describe the person that gave Zarqawi's location away - one might consider that person to be a hero in most circles.

  But let's get to the main point here - ALL of the rulers in the Middle East are in a quandary over the idea of democratic elections where you actually do not know who will win in advance. That was the idea of Iraq - to shake the foundations of these societies so that the current "rulers" learn to respect the populations will instead of dictating it. Islamic fundamentalism will pay a part in this change - since it is part of the local culture - the trick is to let it run its course and show it has no better answers than any other philosophy for running a state. The radicals were there before Bush and will be afterward - but in Professor Coles' fairy land - it's got to be all the USA's fault.

  Permalink Monday, June 26, 2006 10:39 PM