There are some groups who inwardly support the recent attacks in the United States and yet come up with justifications objecting to the American plan to strike at the perpetrators of the heinous act. These groups do not dare to openly declare their support for the terrorists. Instead, they make devious statements. This approach is reminiscent of their known stand about Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. At the time, of course, they argued that the attack on Kuwait was contemptible but that the issue should have been resolved in a peaceful manner instead of unleashing a violent attack on Iraq.
In other words, they wanted the problem to remain unsolved and the Iraqi regime not to be called the aggressor. The same groups now agree that the devastating attack in the United States was a detestable crime but that the attacked country should not strike back until it produces conclusive evidence against the terrorists who masterminded the attack and the international community also approves the US plan.
Nobody would object to such demands in normal circumstances. But can such a stand possibly be reasonable when the ax has already struck the neck and the world around is burning? Even poor countries such as Uganda would strike back with all the force they could muster if 6,000 of their people were killed by an enemy.
Now imagine the reactions of a country which is incomparably stronger and larger than Uganda. International law allows any nation which has been attacked to defend itself without waiting for international approval. The people of South Lebanon have been reacting violently with no disapproval from the international community because they have been victims of Israeli attacks. The Lebanese people did not wait for the approval of anyone else, including the Security Council.
The groups who support the terrorist acts in their hearts use vague words and expressions. When speaking about acts of terrorism one should not be equivocal. Since these people and groups do not want to be treated as enemies, they do not openly and clearly announce their views. Instead, they put forward impossible conditions for a strike back. The groups want to be brotherly with Bin Laden and, at the same time, also stay in the good books of Arab governments.
The groups are eager to justify the acts of Al-Qaeda more than the members of the organization who are frank in their support of any attack on US and do not care about world public opinion. But for annoying their hosts, the Taleban, the Al-Qaeda members would not have hesitated to declare to the world that they were the organizers of the Sept.11 attacks. Further, the Qaeda has been sending signals and some of its followers, who were arrested over the past three years, provided enough information about the perpetrator of the recent attacks in New York and Washington. The mastermind behind the acts does not want anyone to have doubts about the villain responsible. Then why should these groups be ashamed of telling what they believed in or, at the least, why don’t they refrain from condemning acts which they admire in their hearts?
The groups have no right to reproach a victim of terrorism if the victim attempts to strike back at the aggressor who will, obviously, expect retaliation and will be prepared to face the consequences of his acts.
