For those abroad unaware, BBC1, faced with the cancellation of the UEFA football, put on a 'special' live Question Time. On there was a former US Ambassador (sorry - didn't get his name). Most of the time the programme was an anti-american rant, don't know how the former ambassador kept his cool. I certainly didn't. The Muslims appearing did their case no good whatsoever, nor did some of the guests.

The audience - well, don't know where they came from, but they were almost cheering (certainly applauding) at every anti-USA comment. I was acutely embarrassed, as the programme in NO WAY mirrored the feeling in the country. What happens when they will show parts of this programme in the USA, as they almost certainly will? How will this make ME look?

I am getting very angry now. I am one of the silent majority, other than through this forum my views are my own. For these people to hijack (yes, I do see the irony in using the word) this programme, on our national, world respected channel, is almost treasonable.

Those who didn't see it may think I am over-reacting here; trust me, if you'd have seen it you would feel the same.

Appalling.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Answers

AP

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Nick, i felt that way when Diana died. I was being told by the media I was mourning, i was suffering. Bugger was I. And not one person i met or knew was either. Yes a lot of people were affected, that is their feelings, and i respect them. But to tell the world everyone was was insulting. The media is always going to misrepresent true feelings. Or what we percieve as true feelings. However on this occasion i'm with you. But, it's their views, shame it was on telly.

Question for you Nick, how many people have died in the NI troubles? We were discussing this last night and wondered whether NI, Palestine, Drugs war etc, were disasters of equal measure, only less obvious due to the time scale. This is not to be little WTC only to guage disaster in more perspective.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

I saw it and thought exactly the same, I was consoled with the fact that they didn't wheel Tony Benn out.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

not a great weekend to be out on a night out if you are a bit muslim looking. i bet decent minded muslims winced when they saw it.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Yes I watched it, and it did make me very uncomfortable. How did the BBC pick this audience? I can`t believe they just invited anyone to turn up on a first come first serve basis. I feel that they may have deliberately chose a potentially volatile audience - but I suspect they got more than they bargained for. I think the programmers have once again behaved irresponsibly. But then I had a long enough rant on that subject last night.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Nick...I saw it but my views are not as Colemans English Mustard as yours. Sure there was some anti-USA stuff but most of it came from our middle eastern firm and one or two major lefties. I witnessed some serious support for the States from several audience members but quite rightly one or two were reasonablly questioning WHY many in the world feel anti-American. That's all.

Hand on your hearts here....before Tuesday's events....who could have safely said that they actually liked Americans and most of their policies?...Not many I guess and we are supposed to be their friends so imagaine how their "enemies" feel. They seem to side with Israel who are indeed terrorists in the eyes of many Arabs...big points loss there. They walk out of world talks on admitting slavery was wrong with Israeli funnily enough....another big points loss...and recently they have dismissed any world agreement to try and cut down on greenhouse gases etc. Include the recent China spy-plane episode and you can see straight away that the self appointed worlds policemen are not the golden boys they think thay are. And there's the problem....they THINK they are the best people in the world with all the answers and they are wrong. Personally speaking It phases me little but there are some crazy crazy folk out there who will go all the way in cutting them down to size. As soon as they realise and address the issues that burn in the hearts of these "enemies" we can get on with having a safer world. At the moment, for all the intervention the USA has taken part in around the globe, the world is in a very bad way. Ironic huh?

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

I too watched it, and got extremely frustrated that the audience did not appear to be at all a fair representation of public feeling. I actually felt sorry for the American guy (Lader ?) who seemed genuinely shocked at the level of anti-American sentiment .

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Swift - you mentioned Norhtern Ireland. We had, only last week, a lond debate here on that subject. I have to say, and I'm slightly embarrassed to admit this, I have been waiting for someone to mention NI in the States.

New York has long been the best area for the IRA donations. I have been wanting someone to stand up and say

ALL OF YOU IRA SUPPORTERS IN NEW YORK : 'See how you are feeling now? Do you think all those innocent people deserved what they got? DO you think the suffering is okay? Do you hate the people who thousands of mile away give money so that YOUR country, YOUR people can be blown up? How do YOU feel now? Are all terrorists now bad, or are the ones in Ireland different? You New Yorker IRA supporters ignored for YEARS that millions were collected for Irish Terrorism, thinking you were representing the 'little' people against the 'big, bad' Brits. We suffered for years - now tragically it's happenned to you. You let a known terrorist, Gerry Adams, into your country and into your White house. How would you feel if we let Bin Laden into Number 10 and called him a heroic freedom fighter? What are your views now you two faced bastards?

However, I probably would not say this; I would be seen as extremist, but I do see double standards here. Either all terrorism is terrorism, or its a small group of heroes fighting against oppression if we happen to be on their side. Me - I don't take sides. If you kill innocents on purpose - not through collateral damage of a war - you are a terrorist.

Time for the New York Irish to take a stand, but they won't.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

ManU Fan in Talking Sense Shock!

Gotta agree wholeheartedly with LR. America needs to move beyond this victim mentality and take a good hard look at why their country is targetted. It's no good Bush spouting crap like "we were a target because we stand like a beacon of freedom" whilst his administration hands out billions to Israel to buy helicopter gunships to indiscriminately slaughter Palestinians. The tragedy of the WTC and Pentagon attacks will be made even more tragic if America does not realise that these acts do not require retribution they ARE retribution.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

it's hard to say who is right and wrong here. You can not blame the U.S. for protecting what they consider valuable allies and interests in the middle east. Oh... by the way England has walked hand in hand with the U.S. and supported their actions in the middle east. So it's not easy to point fingers.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Nick, I have to agree with you over the Irish Americans who gave money to the IRA. It is incredibly sad that so many people have suffered in NY as a result of this attack, but I couldn't help thinking of the number who have been killed in NI and the UK as a direct result of the money poured into IRA coffers by people in that very city and across the USA.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Sparxx - you could say that the UK led the way in making a mess of the mid East. Post WW1 refusing creation of an Arab state, drawing up borders that split national identities (Iraq, Kurds) and of course the infamous abstention to abolish Palestine and create Israel.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

My sister in law' parents are staying with us at the moment. they're from Nevada. They've been pretty subdued so far and they're staunch Republicans - but i get the real, frightening impression that right underneath the surface they're wanting to indiscriminately bomb anyone connected or unconnected with the WTC and Pentagon catastrophes. I keep drawing paralells with NI and they seem to understand a little better. I think it was Stevo on another thread who put it into perspective for me:

"It's a time for cool nerves and strong leadership"

Anyone got faith in George W. Bush?

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

When this all broke and I wasn't aware of the dimensions of the tragedy, my first assumption was that it was a Middle East act and my second thought was that there was blood on all our hands because of the UK's systematic alignment with the US on Middle Eastern policy. I still think that to a certain extent. I'd also be lying if I said that the American money poured into the IRA didn't come in to my mind, too. I'm also sceptical of any country's claims to being a beacon of freedom : the US electoral system isn't beyond critcism and they have certain laws (such as the Asset Forfeiture Laws) which frankly would have made Nazi Germany blush. We too are desperately proud of being the World's oldest democracy despite having an anachronistic voting system (first past the post). The point about it is, though, is that innocent people were going to work, innocently going about their business, and were killed in vast numbers by extremists who were prepared to die for their dogma of hatred: ideology, the Gulf War, Bostonians paying a bundle to the IRA don't matter, lives lost due to fanaticism do.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

I have picked up a latent distrust of GWB from the media, and haven't particularly comfortable about those feelings because of their origin. However, when I heard him on live TV talking like Rambo about "whuppin the terrorists" it sent an icy chill down my spine. Fortunately he is surrounded by good men like Colin Powell - let's only hope he listens to these people.

Some US politician was talking on Newsnight last night about the US "leading the civilised world". He was rightly pulled up short by Kirtsy Whats-her-name who added "presumably the rest of the world then are uncivilised? Don't you realise this is but one example why the US is widely despised around the world?"

These two examples yesterday illustrated at least part of the problem that the US has to come to terms with if they ever hope to truly "whup terrorism".

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

I watched the second half of the program and thought yes, there was an anti-American stance but also the majority of Asian people in the audience were offended by the anti-Islam stance along with the self styled “civilized world” which makes anyone outside NATO as uncivilized.

Certainly only Paddy Pantsdown on the panel talked complete sense.

The whole episode for me shows that is a Nation self appoints itself as the world’s policeman it’s going to find itself under attack. That’s not justification but reality. The realization that the US created & aided the world’s terrorists – Saddam, Mr Binman, Afghan Teleban, Gadafi , the IRA and others in central America. They have been responsible (along with us) for some questionable attacks in war as well as plain atrocities. The worry is that up until now, the US people could not understand that anyone may hold a grudge against them.

They need to think now what the consequences of military action will be and if arrest is a long term better option.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

But Bobby...you could then also say that had the Americans not forced our hand over Suez we would have none of this crap now.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Northern Ireland is a different ballgame altogether. The fact that whether or not Irish Americans are supporting the IRA is not a view that the U.S. government can support. To blame the U.S. for that is completely wrong.

Now I'm not the biggest American supporter in the world, but there are a few things that they do that make the world a better place to live in. Certainly there policies on foreign affairs leave a lot to be desired. Bosnia, South Africa, Haiti, and Taiwan are all victims of U.S. inaction. While Israel and other places around the globe are definite places where the U.S. have been involved too much.

You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. But the one thing we need to understand here is that you'd rather have the Americans fighting alongside you rather than against you.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Sparxx..this wouldn't be the very same MILLIONS of Irish Americans that somehow have a link to the Emerald Isle making the population of Irish Americans three times larger than the population of Ireland ever has been? And what about NORAID? (sp)....a political group holding open functions to raise money for terrorist weapons used at such places like Omagh..Inniskillen (sp) Newry, Warrington, Manchester, Birmingham etc etc etc.

America flirted with the IRA. From Kennedy to Clinton...they all did.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Not disputing that L.R., much as the U.S. poured millions into South Africa in the plutonium and diamond mines and kept apartheid alive for many years. The government will deny, even denounce involvement but that does not stop American Companies from getting their hands dirty so to speak. The thing is you can not blame the government, the money does not come from them.

As I said, there is a lot of things I do not like about the Americans, but I also said if I'm chosing sides, I'm going to be on theirs, simply because it's not a good thing to piss them off.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Sparxx...let's talk football. We're gonna feckin' HUMP ya silly the morra :-)

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Americans - I love them like brothers, and will never forget that if it weren't for them in WWII we'd be in the shit. (NB Not WWI - they arrived at the end and although were involved in key battles the allies would have been victorious without them.)

But, like my own brother, they ain't perfect, then neither are we. I feel it is right to criticise what we see is wrong, but it doesn't mean I don't support them.

Is the world better with or without them? With them, a hundred times, with them.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

One of the comments about this tragic week that will live with me for ever are those of a customer of mine on the day of the massacre.

It was 3 pm an hour after the event and the news was on the radio. I said to him "Have you heard this about the trade centre being blown to bits, with thousands of people likely to have been killed?"

"About time that evil place was destroyed" , was his reply . He went on to say that although it was tragic for so many to suffer, that many millins had suffered because of the WTC. He then gave me a lecture on how the western finantial institutions had destroyed the incomes of millions of people in dozens of countries around the world. He went on about these bankers and stock dealers creating debts from third world countries, keeping them in poventy and causing millions to suffer so that they would become richer. He said that he didn't agree with the methods used by the terrorists , but wasn't surprised that the third world was hitting back at their oppressors.

For once I was speachless, simply wanting this heartless bastard to get out of my shop. But on reflection perhaps he did have a point.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

There is barely a cigarette paper between US and UK foreign policy on most issues. We are frequently the only state left supporting them in some of their more laissez-faire activities (for want of a better term) such as repeatedly bombing Iraq (only last Sunday for example), or insisting on maintaining sanctions that do little to damage Saddam's murderous regime but kill thousands of Iraqi children. Or even allowing US airbases to bomb Tripoli.

Comparisons with NI don't really hold for me. Nothing that conflict has produced comes anywhere close to Tuesday's carnage. Britain should be the US's candid friend, offering sympathy and support, but not giving a blank-cheque for any thoughtless acts of vengeance that will do nothing to make the world a safer place.

I have nothing but sympathy for the American people at this time. I just hope that this appalling act will make more of them, as well as us, ask a few more critical questions about their governments foreign policy. It is not ironic that Bin Laden was once financed by the CIA but, like Saddam Hussein before him, rather symptomatic.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Hello all, Just back to work today and will pass this message on to you from a former co-worker. I was in my car at city hall when the second attack hit and was lucky to make it out at all. It's been a long time since I've last posted so sorry about the format...

> > >TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES > > > > > > > > This, from a Canadian newspaper, no less, is worth sharing. > > > > > > > > America: The Good Neighbor. > > > > > > > > Widespread but only partial news coverage was given > > > > recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from > > > > Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television > > > > commentator. What follows is the full text of his > > > > trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional > > > > Record: > > > > > > > > "This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the > > > > Americans as the most generous and possibly the least > > > > appreciated people on all the earth. > > > > > > > > Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and > > > > Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the > > > > Americans who poured in billions of dollars and > > > > forgave other billions in debts. None of these > > > > countries is today paying even the interest on its > > > > remaining debts to the United States. > > > > > > > > When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it > > > > was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward > > > > was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of > > > > Paris. I was there. I saw it. > > > > > > > > When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United > > > > States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 > > > > American communities were flattened by tornadoes. > > > > Nobody helped. > > > > > > > > The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped > > > > billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now > > > > newspapers in those countries are writing about the > > > > decadent, warmongering Americans. > > > > > > > > I'd like to see just one of those countries that is > > > > gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar > > > > build its own airplane. Does any other country in the > > > > world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the > > > > Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why > > > > don't they fly them? Why do all the International > > > > lines except Russia fly American Planes? > > > > > > > > Why does no other land on earth even consider putting > > > > a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese > > > > technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German > > > > technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about > > > > American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - > > > > not once, but several times and safely home again. > > > > > > > > You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs > > > > right in the store window for everybody to look at. > > > > Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. > > > > They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless > > > > they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American > > > > dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here. > > > > > > > > When the railways of France, Germany and India were > > > > breaking down through age, it was the Americans who > > > > rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the > > > > New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an > > > > old caboose. Both are still broke. > > > > > > > > I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to > > > > the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me > > > > even one time when someone else raced to the Americans > > > > in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even > > > > during the San Francisco earthquake. > > > > > > > > Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one > > > > Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get > > > > kicked around. They will come out of this thing with > > > > their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled > > > > to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating > > > > over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one > > > > of those." > > > > > > > > Stand proud, America! > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > This is one of the best editorials that I have ever > > > > read regarding the United States. It is nice that one > > > > man realizes it. I only wish that the rest of the > > > > world would realize it. We are always blamed for > > > > everything, and never even get a thank you for the > > > > things we do. > > > > > > > > Maybe each of you can send this to at least one person > > > > and they might send it to one of their friends until this letter > > > > is sent to every person on the web. > > > > I am just a single > > > > American that has read this, > > > > I SURE HOPE THAT A LOT MORE READ IT SOON.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

interesting thread. two observations:

1) Dread: you are a prick

2) yes american foreign policy is not always right or intuitively moral, its hard not to be frustrated by the financial and hence political influence of internal special interest groups like israel and the ira. however, like it or not these are american policies executed by a democraticly elected government and the way to change them is through either political lobbying and debate or through war.

this week the terrorists and their sponsors chose war. in the grand scheme of things this was probably not a smart choice for anybody wishing to change and influence american or global public opinion for their cause.

i think the prick mentioned the word retribution. based on what happend here this week i think that any person, government or country involved or partially responsible is fair game to be wiped from the face of the earth by whatever means necessary. now that's fair retribution.

bottom line, there are millions of people in the world each with an idea of how things should be, they all can't have it their way all the time, there are several ways to resolve differences, each has its own set of rules and consequences, choose your side, choose your means of persuasion and live with it.

the prick thinks that the terrorists were justified, come here and say that! better still stand atop a tower in kabul and say that!

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

I seem to have upset you George, perhaps I better clarify.

The attack on the WTC and Pentagon was not justified, but then neither is the bulk of US involvement in the Middle East.

I said that before the US considers retribution they should reflect on why they were targetted. Whoever flew those planes almost certainly considered what they were doing to be retribution (for Afghanistan, Sudan, Palestine, Waco, I dunno). Any American revenge attacks will simply perpetrate the cycle, look at the bombing of Libya for evidence of that.

I only hope that Bush and co will show a little more calm than you are doing.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

I'll let Dread speak for himself, but I don't think he said those bastards were justified. There is a reason for the attack. He pointed out what some might consider to be some of them. It was not a mindless attack, it was very much mindfull.

Pete's quote "I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake". I'm sure there were UK units there with scanning equipment. Anyway a few personal views on the Canadian points. US involvement across the world has usually been hesitant. During the two world wars there was a distinct lack of enthusiasm for getting involved in a European conflict. Pearl Harbour forced the US hand. Undoubtedly their involvement together with the USSR was crucial to defeating Nazi Germany and Japan. Post war, the immediate US concern was to attack / defend against the Soviet Union. So pumping the billions of dollars into the western European econonmies was a measure to ensure financial stability after the draining conflict (failure to retain stability had proven critical in the rise of extremism). However, the idea that it was some altruistic and charitable gift is far from the truth.

USA has definitely assisted and been a great ally to Europe. But a lot of the rest of the world has suffered immensely as a result of their foreign policy. Before anyone kicks me head in I should say that whatever history shows doesn't justify the murderous display on Tuesday. I despise those who initialise and carry out such atrocities. But it is not an isolated or senseless act.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

ok dread to take your argument to its logical conclusion.

a democratic country is attacked by an entity opposed to its foreign policy, so the thing to do is to say "good grief, i didn't know you felt so strongly, if only we'd known" etc.

bollocks! we can't give these people an inch of daylight, they've violated this country and violated my city. if this is the forum they've chosen then it must be played out. the world must understand that violence as a means of persuasion is not a viable option.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Ridding the world of terrorism will not be easy. The USA needs help in finding where the animals live but will not need any assistance in the elimination business. It's my belief that other countries (like the good folks in Turkey) will be able to point Mr. Bush in the right direction. This is a great opportunity for human rights-challenged nations to step it up.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

I would like to endorse the comments and feelings of George Best. I have not always agreed with US foreign policy, but neither have millions of Americans, and many took to the streets and protested. But I deplore the use of the phrase 'self appointed policeman' -- most Americans I know do not want to become involved externally, wanting nothing other than to be left alone. An Bobby is talking through the proverbial hat when he talks about American aid being self serving. Did he ever hear how after World War I it was American supplies given freely that saved Europe starvation and if he thinks Secretary Marshall had only ulterior thoughts, then his knowledge of history is even less than he professes. They are a generous people and those who say otherwise do not know them. The may at times seem arrogant but that perhaps springs from the pride in what they have achieved. And if anyone thinks that the world would be a better place without them, who will they turn to when in trouble -- the Russians, Chinese, Japanese or Mr Mandela?

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Well I'm 100% behind America. They're not bloodthirsty idiots! Someone has committed a terrible act of murder and should rightly be brought to book. The need for justice / revenge is understandable and I don't believe for a minute that the US will begin indiscriminate bombing of all and sundry.

The response will be measured, though perhaps on a greater scale than we've seen before. I hope Britain stands with then - our friendship is unquestioned. Going after all terrorists is the logical consequence of Sept 11th, and the countries that train and harbour them are every bit as guilty. I hope the free nations unite in a relentless hunt for those who would repeat this terrible act.

It's easy to point to America's foreign policy, to history, to capitalism as a root cause, but that's bollocks - it can never justify what happened this week. America may have been guilty of protecting their own interests and looking after their own, but who hasn't? Em - sorry I can't actually think of anyone. America has also freely given aid, written off debt's and offered protection to countries in danger from others with intentions on them. They are the only superpower left in the world and I for one thank God it's them, not Russia, not China, not Nazi Germany, not a Muslim superstate. Who would you rather have?

The countries that breed these terrorists are by and large dictatorships, with incredibly rich heads of state, who crawled to power over a pile of their own people's bones, while the majority of the population live in abject poverty (which would be infinitely worse but for US aid). Don't bother quoting exceptions - I know them. They hide behind a mask of religion, when what they really crave is blood, power, fame. Can anyone doubt that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Do what you've gotta do America, you're big and able enough to handle the responsibility. You've got plenty of friends who share your grief and need for justice, and who'll help wherever they can.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Don't worry Floridian and george, there are millions in this country who are 100% behind you. That people in this country with our Colonial past can seek to take the moral highground is absurd. Not 20 years ago Argentina tried to take back some unregarded Islands in the South Atlantic and we seemed to think it understandable to shed blood to keep them "British". How dare the USA feel the desire to kick arse when someone hijacks planes full of innocent people and crashes them into office blocks? It's apparently all about the order in which you arrange the red, white and blue on your flag.

Having spent much of my youth living in Cape Town, on my return to the UK I used to confront people collecting money for the ANC with how they would like it if I gave money to the IRA. You can't pick and choose your terrorist organisations. You either agree with the concept of violence to gain attention, in which case step up and pay the piper, or you are revolted by it. I get no satisfaction in knowing that some of those killed on Tuesday probably gave money to Noraid at some time any more than I take comfort from knowing that some of them probably managed multinational companies that are responsible for 3rd World debt or even job losses on Tyneside. Money has no conscience, but people do. A guy trying to make his company profitable doesn't set out to starve somebody else: someone piloting a jet full of hostages into a packed office block is operating at an entirely different level. I don't recall the Jarrow marchers setting fire to the Houses of Parliament but they got their point across.

I have never witnessed anything so appalling since I first watched the black and white footage of bulldozers clearing the Nazi concentration camps. No response from the USA, however savage, will gain anything but my complete understanding and support. Delighted to march to a different beat to anyone who thinks those atrocities were justified in any way.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

I think we have to guard against becoming too self-righteous about this, because, as Softie says, the English are born with the original sin of our imperial past. Very few of us think that the IRA are justified in using violence although a good many of us accept that our actions in Ireland over the past six hundred years wouldn't bear much examination in the humanitarian stakes. Equally, a lot of us are uncomfortable with Anglo-American activities in the Middle East but can't possibly condone what happened on Tuesday. Terrorism is never acceptable.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Dunno whether any of you saw the survivor on the BBC news just now - he had lost 700 employees and was spared only because he was late for work. He was in such pain that my mother and I were in floods of tears. You know, we are all sitting here having an ideological debate (one of the great things about the BBS), but it really isn't about The Free World or Anglo-American foreign policy, it's about normal people being devastated by the hate-filled actions of fanatics. These people are far removed from government and just want to live their lives and love their children. It doesn't matter about us or our opinions: all that matters is that all those people in pain in the US be given our love and support.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

You know - very, very few people are really attempting to justify the unjustifiable in this hideous crime. In addition, the guilt some Brits may feel for the crimes of our forefathers are frankly irrelevant.

The main concerns being expressed regard the overall, long-term impact of the understandable reaction. If the US reaction simply results in the death of more innocents it will undoubtedly achieve far worse than nothing - it will forment further acts of the kind we have watched in horror on our tellys this week.

What the world desperately needs is a renewed will to implement solutions to the underlying problems that result in such terror, not simply acts of revenge in splendid isolation - irrespective of whether such actions fully assuage public anger in the US.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Here's hopimg that the US response is seen to be measured and effective by the whole world.
Otherwise as Clarky writes we create more anti-US/Western feelings and possibly further awful catastrophes.
Remember when Bush declared war on the whole world by abrogating Kyoto - if he had his way the extra number of deaths caused by environmental disasters would probably have far exceeded the recent terrorist strikes. He, or rather his advisers, were pushed back from this decision by public and international pressure.
I hope that his administration takes heed of the international pressure to select his target carefully and then to continue on with intense diplomatic/economic pressure on the perceived enemies of the US coupled with positive moves to defuse the injustices which pock- mark the Middle-East.
Public opinion and anger fueled by a media feeding hungrily on intense human grief is no way to solve the problem of terrorism.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

The cause of all the problems and conflicts in the world is either economic or political self-interest. Until each individual country realises that it is part of a planet on which national borders are largely arbitrary and meaningless lines, lasting peace will never be achieved.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

True, I well and truly second your sentiments.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

But why did these people do this thing ?

If we/the US kill these people will it stop it happening again ? In much the way the Israelis have stopped Palestinians from committng suicide bombings.

I understand the desire for vengance, I rarely agree with clergy but i was taken by the US Father who said Jesus had to tell us to love our neighbour cos it wasn't the natural thing to do.

Vengance is great it is cathartic, we get the bastards back.

The problem, i feel, is that these guys think they are being vengeful for what the US have done in the middle east. I'm being flippant, and i apolgise, but why not move the nation of Israel to New Hampshire ? The Middle East would be happy, the US would be happy, the Jews may feel slightly aggrieved but they would know they were better protected, and could spend their money on useful things rather than weapons. It would be a wonderful move that would solve so many problems.

What has happened is clearly wrong and has no excuse, as has any violence.

We need to look at why people have a feeling within them that they need to be terrorists. The front page of The Scotsman lists under a world map Hamas, PKK (Kurdistan), FARC (Colombia), MRTA (Peru), Shining Path (Peru), LTTE, (Sri Lanka), ETA, DHKC (Turkey), PFLP (Palestine), REal IRA, ELA (Greece), Hizbollah, Mujahedin, ASG (Phillipines), ANO, DFLP, PLF (All Palestine), Gia (??), IG, JRA (japan) as valid targets for the US as they are all terrorist groups. Putin would add all of Cechnya. There are the rogue staes of Iraq, N Korea, Iran. Where does it end ? Is the world so full of evil people ?

Are ALL of these people evil ? If the list had been drawn up 14 years ago, then Bin Laden was on our side against the nasty commmies, Nelson Mandela was a baddy (according to Maggie), Pinochet was a hero, there were good guys and bad guys in Central America just depending on whether they took CIA funding or not. Russia would probably add Walesa and Havel to the list.

Democracy is our way, and seems best, but it hasn't made us the ones with the perfect moral highground. To the arab world what the Israelis/Americans have done to the Palestinians is on par with what the Germans did to the Israelis. It may not be, it may be, i really don't know, but I do see constant fear/hatred in arabs (and Israelis) something must have caused that other than them wearing silly sheets over their heads all the time.

Why did Americans hate commies ? Why did Russians hate Americans. Why do Scots hate the English ? Why did Maggie find it necessary to hate Argentinians enough to sacrifice Britsh squaddies ? What drove those 19 hijackers to commit suicide ? What on earth could make them feel that strongly ?

These are such big questions, and my worry is that in 30 years time when we look back we wonder what created such a huge anti-West feeling among Pakistanis (say) even though the US had given them so much money to recover from the nuclear fallout from what used to be known as Afghanistan. Vengance is easy, particularly when you are the playground bully anyway.

Sadly I quote an ex-Labour politician again. The US is looking to spend $60bn dollars on a defence system (that wouldn't have stopped Tuesday), why not give the money starving nations and try and bring them up to US levels of opulence, and remove the need for the defence system ?

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Getting back to my namesakes originial question, I watched the show and was so embarrassed that I have wrote to the beeb, (over 500 complaints), giving my apolhgies to Mr Lader who was MEASURED,CALM, RESTRAINED and quite frankly amongst that lot , a gentleman. Paddy Ashdown who was in the same mob as me has deffo forgot his roots in his quest for diplomacy. He knows what the reaction would be both from himself and his small command over 20 years ago , come alongside Paddy you know the score. The Muslim journo, brilliant aint it , she gets onto the panel to express her views and then gets to write about it the next day in the Indy. As for Tam Dalyell, retire gracefully bonny lad , get real , you cannot see the wood for the trees , civilised of course we are civilised. how many of this country emigrate to Afganastan/Iraq/Iran as opposed to America/Canada/Oz ??? Pre-meditated , probably been planned for over 2 years ,use of sleepers in the States , it will all come out , and any of you who are expressing sympathy just think , these asylum seekers coming thro the tunnel, Saddam would not think twice of utilising them , a few phials of antrax here and there , civilised LEADERS would not do that. My main rant is that the silent majority are the men/woman in the street are never heard, (well done that one woman), why is the audience always made up of Marketing Exc and students from the LSE, you see the guy`s/gals at the sharpend on the coalface , just get on with it, always some mother`s son`s or daughters , they just happen to be ours, so for hell`s sake support them. BTW I would ask you to take one thing into consideration, we are the infidels , read the Koran , Muslim teaching , Arabs must be truthful to each other, they can lie to us lot, Bin Ladens nee here, wasn`t me guv , training camps nah youth centers , on a winner aint it

-- Anonymous, September 15, 2001

From the BBC Website:

The BBC's director general Greg Dyke has issued a personal apology for Thursday's controversial Question Time programme on the US hijack attacks. More than 2,000 viewers rang the corporation to complain about the current affairs programme, during which strong anti-American sentiments were expressed by many members of the studio audience. Mr Dyke said he "would like to apologise to the viewers who were offended by it". He added that it was an inappropriate programme to broadcast live just two days after the suicide attacks on America, and should have been recorded and edited. He has also personally apologised to the former US ambassador to Britain, Philip Lader, a panel member on the programme, for any distress he might have felt during some of the debate's fiercest exchanges. 'Entirely proper debate' Greg Dyke did not see the Question Time show go out live because he was attending a television conference in Cambridge. However, after reviewing a tape of the programme, the director general decided to amplify the general apology the BBC issued on Friday. "Much of the programme was an entirely proper debate on how the US should react to the atrocities of the past week," he said in a statement issued on Saturday. "That debate has been taking place in all media since Tuesday. "However, despite the best efforts of David Dimbleby and the panel, there were times in the programme when the tone was not appropriate, given the terrible events of this week. He added: "I have today spoken to Phillip Lader, the former US Ambassador to the UK who was on the panel, and apologised for any distress the programme may have caused him." Mr Lader had been attempting to express his sadness over the attacks when a number of audience members had shouted him down to voice their anti-US opinions. Mr Lader had looked close to tears. At times, David Dimbleby struggled to control the discussion as voices and tempers became raised. Some audience members said the US was ultimately responsible for the attacks because of its foreign policy. Audience 'imbalance' Most of the viewers who rang the BBC to complain about the Question Time edition said it had been insensitive to broadcast the programme so soon after the disaster. Others telephoned newspapers and the Broadcasting Standards Commission. The panel also included former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown, Labour left-winger and Father of the House, Tam Dalyell, and columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. The aim of the programme, which picks audiences to get a broad range of political views, was to have a frank discussion about the attacks. Many of those who rang to complain felt that there had been an imbalance in the audience, with a disproportionate number of people from an anti-American perspective. The BBC's Media Correspondent, Nick Higham, said there was a recognition in the corporation that the audience could have been more representative of wider opinion. "There weren't, as one senior BBC executive put it to me, enough representatives of 'middle England', who would have taken a very uncomplicated but pro-American line."

-- Anonymous, September 15, 2001