Terror war: More Bang For Their Buck
'US vice-president Dick Cheney is quoted as having said in a speech, post-Riyadh: "The only way to deal with this threat ultimately is to destroy it. There's no treaty can solve this problem. There's no peace agreement, no policy of containment or deterrence that works to deal with this threat. We have to go find the terrorists." There is plenty of potential for disagreement with the implication that the terrorist trends in Islam are unrelated to past and present American actions.'

'Virtually all significant successes against Al Qaeda have been recorded on Pakistani soil, through police action rather than military manoeuvres. Had that been the main tack adopted from the outset - not just in Pakistan but also in the Gulf, in North Africa, wherever there was evidence of Al Qaeda activity - it is likely to have yielded much more substantial results in terms of curbing terrorism, with negligible "collateral damage". But within the constraints of a sensible course of action along those lines, it would hardly have been possible for the neo-conservative clique that surrounds Bush to keep alive their dream of world domination, through conquest if necessary.'

The essential danger which the world faces with the so-called 'war on terror' is that it is the ideal pretext for the US government to carry forward their hegemonic policies of war, conquest, repression, domination and exploitation: which policies will of course most likely lead to increased, not diminished terrorism. World public opinion must therefore be mobilised to flatly oppose 'war on terror' and to demand lawful police action and social justice remedies as the only appropriate responses to the problem of terrorism.

Terror war: More Bang For Their Buck
'US vice-president Dick Cheney is quoted as having said in a speech, post-Riyadh: "The only way to deal with this threat ultimately is to destroy it. There's no treaty can solve this problem. There's no peace agreement, no policy of containment or deterrence that works to deal with this threat. We have to go find the terrorists." There is plenty of potential for disagreement with the implication that the terrorist trends in Islam are unrelated to past and present American actions.'

'Virtually all significant successes against Al Qaeda have been recorded on Pakistani soil, through police action rather than military manoeuvres. Had that been the main tack adopted from the outset - not just in Pakistan but also in the Gulf, in North Africa, wherever there was evidence of Al Qaeda activity - it is likely to have yielded much more substantial results in terms of curbing terrorism, with negligible "collateral damage". But within the constraints of a sensible course of action along those lines, it would hardly have been possible for the neo-conservative clique that surrounds Bush to keep alive their dream of world domination, through conquest if necessary.'

The essential danger which the world faces with the so-called 'war on terror' is that it is the ideal pretext for the US government to carry forward their hegemonic policies of war, conquest, repression, domination and exploitation: which policies will of course most likely lead to increased, not diminished terrorism. World public opinion must therefore be mobilised to flatly oppose 'war on terror' and to demand lawful police action and social justice remedies as the only appropriate responses to the problem of terrorism.