I just saw the evening news on a few channels, and it appears that President Bush has mobilised the American army. Now, if the army is going off to attack the terrorists, and only the terrorists, fine. I have no problem with that...for whatever reason, the actions of those very few last Tuesday were absolutely unexcusable.

Now the bit I'm unhappy with. Although Bush didn't say in his speech that the army was going to Afghanistan, it now looks extremely likely that this is where they're going. And why? Because the Taliban refuses to hand over Bin Laden. Now, here is where most news reports stop. That's all they say. However, I heard on Newsround (that's a children's news programme that has an extremely good record for good coverage of big stories) that "the Taliban have refused to hand over Bin Laden...**until concrete proof of his guilt is provided.**" This phrase seems, to me, all-important. If the Taliban haven't handed over Bin Laden, it would appear that they have not received any proof of Bin Laden's guilt. I imagine the US would much rather solve this problem with diplomacy than war, so if the Taliban hasn't received proof of Bin Laden's guilt in these attacks it's a fair bet that the US does not have this proof. In short, the US is going to launch an attack on a poverty-stricken country, in which ONE PERSON is the target, on the basis of some guesses and analysis of style.

HAVE WE ALL GONE MAD???????

Sorry about that mad punctuation, but I think you see my point. I also think that a US army general said something like "We have worried too much in the past about collateral damage."

And the US accuses the terrorists of having no regard for the sanctity of human life.

Phil-"Yes, this post is extremely controversial, and there's a chance I'll get flamed, or banned, or accused of anti-Americanism. I just feel it's something that needs to be said."-bee