I would like to deal with a very important subject regarding the immediate future of our people.
This last week we saw a bombing in Bali, Indonesia and the death of hundreds of people some of who simply disappeared and their bodies have not been found. The identification of the remainder is continuing and many are waiting for some positive sign of their lost loved ones.
As many of you know I went to Bali some two months ago for a reconnaissance for a feast site for our local churches and also for the international singles. What I did not mention was the fact that on that visit I visited the Sari club, which was the target of the bombing in Bali. I was concerned at the operations of the club and its exposure to terrorist operations. The nearby Paddy's also was a problem. Sari was noisy, packed and the haunt of most westerners to Bali on a regular basis. I personally could not remain there for any period. I went home after talking with a young couple with whom I had dinner in a restaurant. It was a western culture foreign to Indonesia that had been imported there among Hindus who have fewer problems with such activities than do Muslims.
Australians and other westerners went to Bali on a regular basis and it was, and probably still is a key tourist centre for the thirties and under.
What has not been appreciated is that Indonesia does not behave in this way except for a much quieter style of disco/karaoke. It will thus be a type of behaviour unaffordable by, and objectionable, to most Indonesians. It will thus be a constant soft target when we wish to engage in any operations against Islam or even in our commercial operations. One might ask how this terrorist activity was undertaken in Bali and who was behind it. Such questions preoccupy our forensic teams right now.
The Indonesians have taken a number of people into custody and an ex-Air Force officer had admitted to making the bomb. He was allegedly dismissed earlier from the force for impropriety.
The Indonesians are cooperating and President Megawati Sokearnoputri is now trying to ensure action is taken to deal with the terrorist cells there, although Indonesia formally denies that there are any Jemaah Islamya or Al Qaeda cells in Indonesia. The Armed Forces have denied involvement and they have even denied that they use the military C4 explosive, which is surprising to say the least.
Much is being made of this attack and attempts are being made non-stop to link it to Al Qaeda and Iraq.
One could and should ask a number of questions about the actions in the USA and the Commonwealth, about our potential involvement in these activities, and just what we actually know about the terrorist links.
How far does our involvement go in the face of a declaration of war by our nations against other nations and on what grounds?
We have an obligation to make alive and not just obey the injunction thou shalt not kill. We have examined the law on this matter in the paper Law and the Sixth Commandment (No. 259) at www.ccg.org/english/s/p259.html
How might we view the matter?
The continental USA was attacked on September 11 2001, and with commendable restraint the US armed forces waited until they had amassed information and a force and then went after a target that had openly supported the force they had identified as being behind the attacks. That was Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. They had been studying this problem for some time and, in fact, wanted an excuse to get rid of the administration in Afghanistan, which was the Taliban regime.
The oil interests wanted the Taliban out so that the Khazak oil could come out via Afghanistan and Iran into the Gulf. Iran was agreeable but the Taliban wanted too much money. Thus 9/11/2001 was a perfect excuse for these actions regardless of the truth of Al Qaeda involvement. Their involvement merely reinforced an action already determined as necessary from other sources.
The existence of other ethnic warring factions in the area and high levels of expertise among the Special Forces groups made this action relatively easy and clean for the US administration.
George W. Bush is not a gifted President. He is not articulate and makes basic errors in the English language. Prior to 11 September 2001 he had a low approval rating. The events of 11 September 2001 shot him to the highest approval ratings in the history of polls. He stayed there while he delivered action based on terrorist issues and took the focus away from the economic woes of the USA, which are becoming steadily worse.
The "war on terrorism" allowed the most draconian peacetime legislation we have seen in a long time. The basic tenets of our liberty are being undermined in the west. It appears that is so we will make fewer objections in being brought into the European Legal Napoleonic Code quasi-Fascist system in the not too distant future. Many of our middle military officers are behind this European New World Order and they view anyone who speaks for the British system and against the European system as a threat. I heard one tell another to make a report on me after a speech I gave at a function to which they were invited. They do not seem to see that their new international loyalties are direct treason against their people and the interest of free men everywhere.
I spoke with a US woman in Hawaii recently who seemed to be aware of the problem and also aware that the US people seem to be oblivious to the real and serious dangers they face. She said that an opinion poll was recently circulated based on the contents of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. People were asked if there was too much freedom. They said yes there was too much freedom, and too much freedom of speech, and so on. When informed of the basis of the poll and the contents of the first amendment they were reportedly puzzled but most did not see that the very liberty they enjoyed was enshrined in a Constitution they were now prepared to pull down to maintain their comfort zone. Our education is being destroyed to the extent that we are being enslaved by ignorance and double standards. Many of the double standards are visible in the actions regarding the Middle East and the USA.
There seems to be no direct connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
However, we have another serious and illogical problem with which we must deal. That is the previous Gulf War action against Iraq. Saddam Hussein's foolish actions then were a direct threat to US Oil interests and to the Bush family itself. The former president Bush went into Iraq after marshalling approval and support and protected Kuwaiti oil interests and his own. He did not finish the job for very serious reasons, most of which were not published.
Now eleven years later we are faced with another problem so it seems.
Osama bin Laden might still be alive, who knows? Who knows where he is? However we do know where to find Hussein and Iraq, and we can tie the enemy into a less nebulous national public image for American spin-doctors.
As most are aware, some people asked me what would happen in the previous Gulf War in 1991. I said then that the USA would go in and do what they did in Vietnam, and that was to fail to put a soldier in the last foxhole. And then they would have to return some time later and do the job again, and it was only then that they would be faced with immense casualty figures. Hussein was right when he said America simply does not have the political will to fight a war of attrition. They do not have the psyche for it in these modern times. I did not tell those who asked me the question, that the US and British Commonwealth would be going in under the second Bush President for even weaker reasons, as that would merely have confused the issue.
The lack of resolve will make this coming war even more dangerous. The approval ratings are superficial sabre rattling and will dry up with the first body bags.
We have no coherent reasons for going to war. None have been presented. None appear evident.
By US criteria, the United Nations would have the same level of concern about Britain, and the USA, and France, and Russia. Each of the permanent members of the Security Council has weapons of mass destruction. They have nuclear weapons, bio-chemical weapons and they have tested them in the open environment. The USA stated recently that it was targeting North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Russia and Afghanistan with nuclear weapons.
Iraq has made no such claim. It has been found to be attempting to obtain the facilities to make nuclear weapons. These actions do not constitute grounds for UN intervention and control and if it did, orders and sanctions would be against the Security Council itself, and which orders could never be enforced.
North Korea has just announced that it has been engaged in nuclear activity with the intent of nuclear arms production. No action is even hinted at in regards to North Korea and a cynic might suggest that the reasons relate to their absence of oil.
Moreover, each nation is entitled to arm itself with the weapons at its disposal or take action to equip itself with weapons that will ensure its survival.
If a nation can be interfered with on the basis of its attempts in this regard, then action must logically be taken against the USA, Britain, France and Russia.
Clearly, the logic used in the war rhetoric is deficient.
There must be more to it than meets the eye.
The Bush Administration is intent upon war with Iraq. This must be seen as distinct from the Pentagon, which is against it. Even senior intelligence officials are against it and have leaked threat analysis, which shows a low or limited threat and no justification for war.
However, the opinion polls in the USA seem to be manufactured to show a support for the war when all letters to the editors and expressions indicate otherwise. Is the US media massaging the figures as it seems? We will know later, but by then it will be too late and too many men dead to retrieve.
When will the USA invade Iraq?
The Bush Administration wants a war soon. It is thought that it cannot afford to go before Christmas as that would further disrupt consumer confidence and the US business lobbies, and so it must be after Christmas or take a much greater economic hit. It can't be much later as the desert heats up in spring. So, we could look at an action in January and over the following months, hoping to have it over by summer in Iraq. Which January? 2003 is the most likely as 2004 is too late for the Bush Administration and the coming election. The economic realities in the US will make it even more of a problem by then also.
The fact is that large numbers of heavy transport planes are being sent out on operations as I write and they will be in position by the end of October it seems from the scale of current build-ups. Thus, we are ready for a war anytime from November onwards.
Once the war commences, it is legitimate for all activities to be undertaken against the parties. Thus, we will see the release of biochemical and other agents.
Once major losses occur in the Allied forces in Iraq, nuclear weapons will probably be used.
Baghdad has between 6 million and 10 million people strong, depending on where the boundaries are drawn. Saddam Hussein is in the middle of that mass in a nuclear shelter. Stalingrad was an easier target for the Nazis. Our men will be eaten up by attrition.
Thus, the informed groups in the USA are in opposition to it. The populace as a whole has not thought much about it at all. They are going along with it because of the rhetoric, and the ease of Afghanistan, and there is no real sacrifice and visible cost as yet. That will change rapidly as the first body bags come home. This time the USA and British Commonwealth will have to do it alone for the critical period.
The Commonwealth will face a greater problem at home as well and will become ensnared in war on a number of fronts.
The UN is now faced with a US "tank" that it cannot stop. What should it do? Law is based on its blind application. Justice must be uniform and not in respect of persons.
The US and Britain have the option of totally annihilating Iraq the moment they engage in nuclear or biochemical activity against them. It is an insane act to commence a war that will see the destruction of one's own people.
The application of international action cannot be by whim. It might also be argued, and I have heard it so argued by Britons, that New York was the target of terrorism because it, through its Irish and Jewish population supported war and also terrorism in Ireland, UK and Palestine. It is a miracle that Britain is behind them in view of the activities in Northern Ireland and Britain through the IRA. However the Commonwealth sees its broader interests.
What should a Christian do? The answer is to make one's voice heard if possible in the halls of reason.
What will happen in the future?
If this war continues to be played out, then we will see many dead as a result. The conflict may harness a Muslim counter reaction. The next or later terrorist attacks will be in New York by ship-carried nuclear weapons and against other targets, such as Sydney and San Francisco and elsewhere. Remember, there are a hundred or more nuclear weapons missing for a decade or more, and some of which have by now found their way into Islamic hands. However, of one thing we can be sure. New York will pay in blood for this war if it comes about. The escalation will continue and the demons will attempt to destroy the power of the US and British Commonwealth, as that is the only thing that has kept the world free of this beast power for the entire 20th century.
Does a Christian shrink from standing up for right and truth because they might die? No! But they must do it on a just and logical basis and apply God's Laws equally. A Christian and Muslim both have an obligation to restrain a madman who would enter his home and kill his family. So too is it with the nation.
May God bless us all and keep us from harm in these coming days of trouble.
© Copyright 2002 Christian Churches of God, All Rights Reserved