Graham

Whilst there may be some valid points in that article, I don't think Lord Rees-Mogg has managed to hit the nail on the head.

Some of his assertions, for me, just don't add up. He says "we do know that this was a crime on the scale of the World Trade Centre attack. Without 9/11, 3/11 would not have happened", but it could equally be argued that without the attacks on Iraq the Madrid bombings would not have happened. Yes, September 11th showed that wholesale attacks were possible, however surely it would not have taken two and a half years to organise another atrocity.

He also says " President Bush has been criticised for describing the new situation after 9/11 as †œthe war against terrorismâ₠¬Â. Yet that is a fair description. When people kill by the hundreds or thousands they change the nature of the crime."

Well, no, I don't think they do. *One* terrorist death is one too many, he seems to imply that there is an "acceptable level" of terrorism" which is an astonishing (and deeply worrying) assertion.

He goes on "In Europe we were slow to recognise what 9/11 meant to the people of the United States. Many Europeans have still failed to make the leap of sympathy, let alone to understand the global challenge. In this, Tony Blair, got it right from the beginning. "

I can't understand how he can say that we need a "leap of sympathy" to understand what September 11th means to the USA. IMO what it meant to the USA was that they suddenly realised that their politicians can't sit there and pull the strings on the rest of the world with impugnity whilst their population ignores global problems because "they're happening somewhere else". I doubt there are many who do not feel at least some sympathy for the victims of September 11th, but that doesn't mean we have to immediately fall into line with their policies because of it.

The article continues "[...] we now have to face a global terror intended to destroy our society. It is based on religious fanaticism and hatred of the modern world in almost all its manifestations, but particularly of the global power of the United States."

And he implies that this is a bad thing, but can he make the leap of imagination to consider what it may be like from *their* point of view? Is the "global power of the United States" *necessarily* a "good thing"? Is the Western Media pouring scorn on someone else's beliefs (or, at least, their mis-?-understanding of those beliefs) absolutely a benefit? Is the "modern world" entirely to blame? Or just those who (ab)use its power to try to run the world in the way that *they* see fit?

If we were faced with an enemy who wanted to destroy us, who said "you're either with us or against us", what would *we* do?? They do not have the planes and tanks and military might, so they fight back in the only way they can. NOTE: *please* do not think that I am condoning these attacks, just as I did not condone the attacks on Iraq. I don't think either of these were the right way to go about matters, but we now appear to be locked in a vicious cycle because of them.

When he says "It is only in Europe that a self-defeating anti-Americanism is to be found. In every European country there are many people who think that they can afford the luxury of a carping hostility to American power." what on *earth* does he think he is talking about? Should we simply kowtow to American "Imperialist" ambitions? The "Project for the New American Century" set out a roadmap and those who wrote it now make policy in the US Government. Should we just go along with it because they are the biggest power around? Or should we, as is our right, object to it if we feel it is wrong?

Why (and how?!) can he somehow turn this into "self-defeating anti-Americanism" instead of the democratic right of Free Speech???

"They are talking about the one nation strong enough to fight for our societies."

Nonsense! They are talking about the one nation who are arrogant enough to think that *they* and only they have the "one true solution" to the problems. That might makes right. That rhetoric will triumph over facts. Did they learn *nothing* from Vietnam?

"None of us has a choice. To bin Laden we are all the same: Christians, however agnostic; Crusaders, however timid; Americaââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s allies, however disloyal; capitalists, however leftish; enemies of Islam, however hostile to Zionism."

And to Bush and his ilk *we* are all the same. "You're either with us or you're against us".

Two wrongs have never yet made a right, and they won't start now.