Messages

Hmm, on topic you say. Ah, what the hell.

Being a relativly new guy to the world of thrills I haven't read the orginal Rogue Trooper series (although I liked the Friday/Tor Cyran series) nor the orginal Bad Company (although I'm not sure on the new one) but I have read Halo Jones Bk3 in book form and I think its brilliant. Completely puts across what hell war is but how your physic can come to depend on it.  

Also both V for Vendatta and Watchman although not primarly about war talk about the issues around war.Also Ennis current War Stories for Vertigo are good value.

P.S Last weeks terrorist was a brilliant story.

Lots of Love
Will
xxx

Yes your right but so what?Its the Americans with their show at Numberg that created the whole idea of War Crimes and a childish arguement over who started it first doesn't change anything espeacilly as the USA as created the idea of "State Terrorism".

The fact is that the A-Bom drops were War Crimes against a nation desperate to get out of the war. Japan had already tried to make peace using Russia as a middle man. If America had made it clear that Japan would not be forced to get rid of their "King" by the USA (as the USA had done to Germany) then they would have made peace.

However Truman wanted to gain an edge over Russia in the up coming peace conference so drop the A-Bombs instead.

I wrote article for another websitte alining my view that "terrorist" is just an insult:

"When is a Terrorist is a Terrorist?
When is a Freedom Fighter is a Freedom Fighter?

These two questions blow apart the so-called "War on Terrorism" and Blair's New World Order wide open. It's fairly easy to decide what a terrorist action is i.e. Sept 11. Bombings, Israel bombing Palestine buildings or America bombing Al Jazzera's Afghan studio.

What is more difficult is to decide who is a terrorist, because it is a subjective insult there is no such thing as a universal definition of "terrorist". Whether you think a group is a terrorist or a freedom fighter entirely depends on your political bias. The USA's recent attempt to right such a definition has already resulted in a difference being made between "Good Terrorists" and "BAD Terrorists" and has also been manipulated by both Russia and India to clampdown on their Islamic Separatists. The fact is some people thought of Nelson Mandela as a terrorist, the British authorities called Ghandi a terrorist and some Americans STILL see the IRA as Freedom Fighters fighting the Colonial rule of the fascist British.

Just look at Bin Laden; as we see him as an evil man attacking democracy while alot of the Arab world sees him as fighting American Imperialism and if you look at the objectives of Al Queada they don't look so bad:

1.   Overthrowing the corrupt Saudi regime
2.   America to stop bombing Iraq
3.   The creation of a Palestine State
4.   Referendum on the status of Kashmir
5.   Chechnya to gain independence from Russia

Now out of those 3 of them (3-5) concern the self-determination of a group of people. One of them concerns the overthrow of an autocratic, corrupt, self-serving dictatorship (propped up by the US) and at least two are in compliance with two UN resolutions (2 and 4).

Now if a terrorist organization with these aims had been presented to you and if you didn't know it was Al'Queda you would probably support them. You will find in all five of them the local people will support what Al'Queda are trying to achieve, hell I do and I've been a Tory since I was 6.

There is no doubt that Bin Laden was fueled by a racist hatred of America although he has several legitimate reasons, which are:

1.   America propping up the Saudi regime
2.   America bombing and sanctions* on Iraq
3.   America abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet war.
4.   America's funding and support of Israel

*Their UN sanctions but of the five permanent members of the Security Council only the USA and the UK take any notice of them.

The fact is no matter how evil Sept 11 was you can easily argue that Al' Quada had good reasons for doing so; he was not attacking democracy but in their eyes striking back at America for all the things America's done to the Arab world.
Let's also cut the bullshit about democraticry and human rights, the fact is that in the Muslim world only one country has a stable democracy and that is Turkey. The rest of them are ruled by dictators, a lot of them propped up by America. And even if they did it wouldn't matter, as western bankers will be telling their democratically elected governments how to run their economies. We left the only the bullet as a means for these people to make a difference and that is what people like Bin Laden feed from.

So what's my point? Well go back to your History lessons; go back to the Numberg trials or the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. What are we spoon-fed? That as what the Allies did was wrong and hurt innocent people but it was for a good and honest cause so it was excusable. Well the fact is Bin Laden and his followers believe that they are in the right so don't they have the right to take the nessacry actions so good triumphs?

The fact is in a War of absolutes there is no room for comparison, there is no room for innocents, there is no room for causalities; they are all just collateral damage."

If your wondering about the content of the magazine it will be on these lines just better researched.

P.s Sorry about not having the scripts to print but there not rready.

Lots of Love
Will
xxx

The meaning off "USA_Terrorist=Good Terrorsit" is that although America is against Terrorism it is surpporting "terrorist organisations". Organisations such as the KLA or the Iraqi ones (which have an grant from USA each year) would under the UK government's description amount to terrorists. Also if you take the example of the IRA, most of their funding came from the USA and they were were given major creditablity by Adam's visa even though the British Government asked them not to.

My overall point was that Terrorism is a subjective insult. It is impossible to say objectivly "he's a terrorist" unless you want to open a can of worms. It's all a matter of perspective i.e we see Bin Ladien as a bastard some Muslims seem him as a saviour.

And before anyone screams "Sept 11th" I scream back "Two Atom Bombs on Japan" which were the two worst single Crimes against Humanity.
We accepted it because we were lied to and told that it save countless lives that would have been lost in a land invasion of Japan.
 
(Japan had already tried to made peace using the USSR and if they had been told that they would have been allowed to keep their Empirour they would have) surrendered).

Now if we accept that who are we to judge the Muslim that thinks the WTC will stop America interfering in their lives. And if America would do that just to gain the Upper Hand over the USSR who are they to judge Bin Ladien?

I know Bin Ladien is an evil man, but just because he is does not mean his followers are. They are not monsters who go to sleep thinking about killing babies as some people portray them as, they have a motive and in the case of Al'Queada offical ones they aren't that bad.

On the actual letter, sorry it sounded crass (although is that just because of the signing off thing?). I would put the script down but I haven't typed it up yet so can't email it, I'll probably have it up tomorrow. It's not a strip about Sept 11th but just a comparisson bewteen our attiudes to what happened in America and what's happening in Afghaninstan.

Lots of Love
Will
xxxx

I am currently putting together a magazine about Sept 11th and I am in the finishing touches of finishing a comic script about them and I was wondering if anyone would be interested in drawing it (black and white or colour) or contributing another script? If you are email me at W_Cooling@hotmail.com soon.
Also I'm sorry I can't pay you but you will be properly credited and be part of something special. Remember it's for the fame not the gain!!!

USATerrorist=Good Terrorist

         Yours
                  William Cooling