> 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

I have to agree with Ellmyruh on this one.
Bin Laden has commited terrorist attacks in the past and does need to be stopped, but the "collateral damage" has the potential to be huge, and Britain alongside of America will take part in this, there is no question in that. President Bush and Tony Blair have both confirmed that.
And to be honest I don't think it is unreasonable that the Taliban want proof of Bin Ladens guilt, if the situation was the other way around we would all want proof, but like Elly said, this is the biggest investigation the FBI has undertaken in history, mistakes aren't an option, especially when civilian lives are at stake.
One thing I would like to know is what are we qualifying as terrorism or "acts of war" no doubt people flying planes into buildings killing thousands of people is horrific and I was as disgusted as the rest of the world. But I would like to know if those declaring war on terrorism is going to include the IRA or the Spanish group ETA, because if not, I think the word hypocritical isn't going to do them justice.
Many Rinkies live in Britain and know what the IRA have done and are capable of, and this has gone on for over 30 years, even those who don't live over here can get a general idea by watching the news. Trust me you don't have to live in Ireland or in London to know what can and does happen.
Is this action just going to include nations who do not conform to the West sense of belief or are they going to go after every terrorist out there....
Dix"interested to see who's on the hit list"ie