Subject: Re:[HoB/D] An Indictment of the HOB
To: BishopsDeputies@justus.anglican.org
A Response to Jan Nunley
from +Ben Benitez
Jan, I wish to thank you for your fine response to the John Leo article that I circulated, and especially for your moving essay about Terry Waite. I happen to know him, as we had the privilege of entertaining Terry in Houston several years ago, soon after he had been released from captivity and after he had written his first book. He is truly one of the most Godly men I have ever met, and I declare without equivocation that he is far closer to God's Kingdom than I have ever been. You captured him well in your essay.
My favorite Terry Waite story is about an incident that took place before he was taken hostage, and during the time in which he was going back and forth to Lebanon, seeking to negotiate the release of the hostages who were then being held in Beirut, all with much publicity on British television.
The then Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, invited Terry to take a few days of "holiday" with him in the North of England. As they were walking down the main road in that village, and walking past the village pub, a man standing in the doorway of the pub cried out, "Hey, I know who you are! You are Terry Waite! I have seen you on the Tely! Hey", he called out to every one inside the pub, "There is Terry Waite, in our village!" Then the man called out, "Terry, won't you come inside? It would be an honor.for us to buy you a pint of bitters (beer)!" And then looking at Terry's companion,
Robert Runcie, who was traveling incognito, wearing a tie instead of a collar, the man said to Terry, "And bring your chum with you!"
Now, Jan, to get serious, and to get to your point in telling us about Terry Waite, I wish to respond to a few of his comments, and yours, in your posting to me. First, I find differing with Terry Waite is very hard for me, as there no one whom I admire more, and he speaks with a stature and a personal knowledge of the Middle East that certainly I do not have. Nevertheless, my conscience leads me to try. He said that the remedy for the terrorism of Sept 11th "is not simple, and is not be found in military aggression, for we are engulfed in a moral mess which demands a new approach." In my opinion no one is happy over us going to war, launching bombing campaigns, and sending our young and finest in harms way. If Terry, or anyone, could devise a peaceful and effective way to address terrorism, to bring to justice those who planned and instigated and supported those hijackers, (who that day murdered and incinerated 6000 people) , there is no one who rejoice more than I would. War is a terrible thing and inevitably innocent people suffer.
However, a prime responsibility of any government, including ours in the United States, is to protect and defend its people. Since September 11th, our government has had the obligation to bring to justice Osama bin Laden, and his al Queda terrorist organization, to justice, or alternately bring justice to them. Does anyone have an alternative approach to a bombing campaign and a military action by the United States and the nations of the Coalition, aimed at bringing down the Taliban government in Afghanistan, that is supporting Osama and his fellows terrorists. After all, he already has been legally indicted for the bombing of the US embassies in Africa, killing 200 people, most of whom were Africans walking down the streets, but Osama and his cohorts do not respond to subpoenas very well. If there were mass murders being perpetrated in your City, could your City legal system avoid sending out armed policemen to try to bring in the murderer, bringing him to justice. Could your Mayor, and Police Chief, declare that in the interest of non violence, they instead would initiate negotiations with him, or could they declare they were going to start working to resolve the social problems of the world, such as poverty and economic inequities, that led the murderer to commit such atrocities, and when these social problems are cured, declare that there would then be no more such murders to worry about. Your Mayor does not have any such luxury, nor does the President of the United States.
The Archbishop Canterbury recently said, " I am a Christian leader, but I hope I speak for every one of us when I say that we are called by God to resist evil, to pursue justice for all and seek to live in peace and harmony with our neighbor." The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, not exactly a stodgy conservative, recently said ( I lost the quote, but this is close to what he said), " If those hijackers, rather than killing 6,000 people, had been able to kill 60,000, or 600,000, they would have rejoiced." I will add that had the hijackers being able to obtain a small nuclear device, they would have joyfully detonated it in Times Square, and murdered a few million! For them, the more the merrier.
Afghanistan, under the Taliban government, has become the world center if international terrorism. The Talibans have imposed a brutal and oppressive rule over the people of Afghanistan, including Sharia, the onerous legal system, the worst features of which are ruthless. The United States, together with other nations of the Coalition, has launched the present campaign to end that Taliban rule in Afghanistan, to end that brutal tyranny, to bring to justice those behind the murderous attacks of September 11th, and to try to eradicate the evils of terrorism in this world, so that other nations in the years to come will not face the same horrors we faced last month. An additional aim of the present military action, is to try in the aftermath to provide a setting whereby the United Nations can help create a new government, that is representative of all of the factions of the people of Afghanistan, a government that is supported by the United States and the other Coalition nations, with all possible economic aid, and probably with UN peace keepers from nations around the world for a period of time.
Our friend Terry seems to feel that the motivation behind the terrorism emanating from the Middle East is the grave economic inequities in the world, the fact that we in the West are rich and they are poor, that we are well fed and they are hungry. It is as though the Islamic extremists, who are the terrorists, are really social revolutionaries, driven by the poverty around them, seeking to bring down the wealthy of the world, and spread their wealth to the poor. (If that were the case, their violence would be aimed first at the Royal family in Saudi Arabia, who consume 90% of the Nation's oil income, and who live in sheer luxury, rather than at the United States. Osama bin Laden is not exactly a poor man, but rather he is a billionaire!
Whereas, certainly world poverty and economic inequities may be some part of the motivation of the terrorists, I believe the main reason driving the Islamic extremists and the suicide bombers, is that they have been taught in their religious schools and they believe it, that the United States is the GREAT SATAN! The see our movies and TV, and read our literature, and they regard ours as a decadent culture, IMMORAL and GODLESS. They despise our Western freedoms, they hate our liberation of women, which they regard as an affront to God! They hate the influence of the West which they feel is steadily corrupting the Middle East, which they want to be a pure and holy Islamic land, They despise those American military bases in Saudi Arabia which have been there since the Gulf War, because to are too close to sacred Islamic holy sites. And, of course, they despise us, because we support Israel, whom they want driven into the Sea, with all of that land restored to the Palestinians. The prime motivation of those suicide bombers is not an economic one, but a religious one, to which they are fanatically devoted. The Israelis have been under attack by suicide bombers for years.
The very word Islam means "submission", and the faithful are to be submissive to Allah, and to his spokespersons as well, the Imams, the Mullahs, their theologians, who in those schools in Pakistan that we see on TV, fan the flames of hatred of the West, and motivate the students (all men, no women) to become holy warriors and join the Jihad, join the Talibans in Afghanistan.
Terry said our bombing would only raise up a new generation of suicide bombers, but they have been doing that for years. Long before September 11th, those schools were cranking out young men, who for the past 10 years have been going to Osama bin Laden's terrorist training camps in Afghanistan,. which have graduated an estimated 20,000 students over these years. The first targets our bombing over this past month have been those camps, trying to blow these camps to pieces, and destroy, at least substantially, his capacity to train new warriors, which along with freezing his funds around the world, should reduce Osama's and the al Queda's capacity to perpetrate more evil deeds.
Certainly, not all Muslims are extremists, but the Islamic moderates in the Middle East and through out the world, are strongly influenced by, intimidated by, and many petrified of the Islamic extremists. The moderates are often the first targets of the extremists. And the Islamic extremists are the most rapidly growing, and most fanatical Islamic group in the world. Did you notice how mild the criticism by the moderate Muslims , both in this Country and in the rest of the world, has been of the carnage on the 11th of September. I was fascinated by the TV coverage of President Bush's visit to the Islamic Cultural Center in Washington a few days after September 11th, which he made as a gesture to Muslims, that the war being launched by the United States was not against the Muslim religion, but against terrorism. he spoke eloquently of the Islamic religion being one of peace and love and compassion.
The Director of the Center, in his response, said little about the terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, no word of condemnation, nor an expression of condolences for the families of the victims. He instead simply extolled the wonders of Islamic culture in the world!
Jan, you and Terry, as well as many others are critical of the military action launched by the United States and other Coalition nations aimed at eradicating terrorism in the world, and bringing to justice those responsible for the September 11th carnage. The necessity of having to do so is certainly regrettable, but in my opinion the United States and the other civilized nations of the world have no alternative.
May God bless you, may He bless our Church, May He bless our President and this Nation, May He bless and hold in the palm of His hand the grieving families of the victims of September 11th, and May He bless all of His children in Afghanistan,
+Ben (Benitez) (I think I have already said enough for a while on this network, so after this posting, I will sit back listen to the rest of you.)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:12:11 +0000
From: Terry Waite Terry@pinkhouse.demon.co.uk
To: Louie Crew lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Subject: [HoB/D] An Indictment of the HOB (fwd)
Dear Louie,
Many thanks for your note and for sending me the very long letter from Bishop Benitez. He raised some important points and I shall attempt to reply briefly. As my main computer is down at the moment and I cannot print, I am inserting my comments at the appropriate point in the Bishop's letter.
TW
In message
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Jan, I wish to thank you for your fine response to the John Leo
I am afraid that I have not seen this essay but I am always conscious of
the fact that one ought to be careful when too much 'good' is spoken about
one. Replies to my points will probably shatter any illusions anyone has
had!
The essence of the story is right but the details are incorrect!
That is certainly true. The question is, has the American Government taken
the most appropriate way of protecting it's people?
No problem with that. It might be noted in passing that the President of
the United States before September 11th. was reluctant to give backing to
the proposed International Court of Criminal Justice. That is the place
where those charged with International Criminal acts ought to appear. It
is vital that we stick strictly to the rule of law. If it is true that the
President has ordered that bin Laden could be killed then it is a sad
lookout for us all. What will America then have to say to any Nation that
in the future singles out an individual for execution without trial?
The simple answer is 'yes'. History teaches that you do not destroy ideas
with bombs. Certainly we do not live in a just world and there are grave
inequalities within the Muslim world and beyond. Within some of the poorer
nations of the world there is a certain natural envy at the richer world.
However perceptions run deeper than that. Many feel that the United States
'uses' nations when it suits and drops them afterwards. That sentiment has
been expressed by many. (Pakistan is just one example.) The world of
International Affairs is a moral mess. Who hailed Bin Laden as a freedom
fighter and armed the Taliband when the war against communism was being
fought on Afghan soil? If Bin Laden is caught or killed do you imagine for
one moment that will see the end of terrorism? For every innocent person
killed in Afghanistan another dozen young men will volunteer to the cause.
Certainly every attempt must be made to bring the perpetrators of the
crime in New York and Washington to justice but how.
Unfortunately the way forward difficult and more complicated that dropping
bombs. First, there has to be a totally new relationship between the so
called 'developed' world and the 'developing' world. The United States
claims to support Free Trade but only when it suits. Look at the fairly
recent argument in Caribbean regarding the importation of bananas. Not a
comfortable story at all. I shall refrain from repeating the argument
regarding the involvement of the USA as an 'impartial' broker in the
Middle East. You must know what the Arab world thinks about that.
Whatever the intentions of the USA it is vital the we consider the
PERCEPTIONS of many of the poor. They do feel used and they have little or
no confidence in the USA. Bin Laden and his like have been successful in
high jacking both Islam and many of the poor. In the long run (and we have
been told that we are in for a long battle) one has to deal with the root
issues and remove the justification that bin Laden falls back on.
Terrorists only thrive when they are protected by communities. One has to
work in such a way that communities will see that it is not in their
interest to offer shelter to terrorists. Bombing will do tremendous damage
and kill many innocent but it will INCREASE resistance way beyond
Afghanistan not decrease it. Always remember that terrorism is symptomatic
of a deeper disorder. One ought never to treat symptoms. Let them guide
you to the basic problem.
Why was it, that in the early days when the Taliband said that if they
were presented with evidence they would consider handing bin Laden over,
were they not taken at their word? True, they may have been bluffing but
where was the harm in calling their bluff. Why not, at that point, put the
matter into the hands of the Secretary General of the UN with the request
the he, or a high level envoy meet the Taliband and present them with
evidence. The ball would then have been clearly in their court. Perhaps
there are several reasons why this was not done. The evidence may have
been too 'sensitive' It may have been insufficient. It may be that the
President 'had to be seen to be doing something' and that bombing was the
way to teach these people a lesson. In this campaign those who support
military action are banking on power politics and many who have joined the
coalition have done so because they are political realists. However, the
mass of the poor are not defeated by military might and we shall see that
as the days go by. Already there are signs that the coalition is beginning
to crack.
America and Britain have in fact been drawn into the tribal conflict that
constitutes Afghanistan. It must be realised that the Northern Alliance
are little or no better than the Taliband and yet now they are hailed.
So, if the USA refuses to hand over to the British courts IRA terrorists
convicted of crimes in the UK do we bomb Baltimore?
We all weep at the death of 6000 innocent people. Do we weep (or even
remember) the thousands killed in Cambodia by bombs? That is one of the
questions many people in the developing world will ask?
You could argue that Saudi Arabia is ruthless and corrupt. Who supports
that country on the International stage?
He is also a high-jacker. (See above)
If those perceptions are true, as some in fact are, then deal with them in
an appropriate manner. Bombing will not deal with them (see above)
A problem of commenting, (as I have done) in a polarized situation is that
one is seen by some to be anti-American (or anti-Western) and over
romantic towards the poor. Let me state quite clearly that I am neither. I
do however know how many of the people in the poorer nations of this world
feel about the West and I know something about the way in which the mind
of the fanatic works. I would like to be a pacifist. Alas I am not. I hope
I am a realist and I would like to be a compassionate realist. One day we
are going to have to learn to develop a new Global order and we are going
to have to base our actions on what is just and fair. International
relations are still in the stone age. Difference need not be divisive-it
can be creative but we all have a long way to go before that is made a
reality in our sad divided world.
With love and sympathy to all who have suffered terribly during the past
weeks.
Terry Waite CBE
PS What next if the cannon fails to kill the sparrow
Terry Waite
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 01:01:31 EST
A Response to Terry Waite,
Terry, my friend, Louie Crew made a poor choice of words, when he told you
that I had "taken you on"! I really am not very bright, but I do have more
sense than to "take you on," if for no other reason than that you are a
bigger man than I am, in more ways than just your great size!!
I did respond to the essay that Jan Nunley circulated on this network, in
which you eloquently gave your opinion on the war being waged in Afghanistan
by Anglo American forces, and supported by the other nations in the Coalition
formed with the ambitious and worthy aim of eradicating terrorism in this
world. In reading your response to my response, I can state categorically
that I have never read anything you wrote, nor heard anything you said from
which I did not learn much. However, since you extended me the courtesy of
responding to my comments, I would like to extend you that same courtesy. I
frankly would much prefer sitting down with you over a couple of pints of
bitter in a good English pub for this exchange, but for now I guess this
mystifying cyber network is the best we can do!
Terry, you said:
I do not know the answer to your question, and to have negotiated with
Taliband would on one hand certainly seem to have been the astute and
politically correct thing to do. From the very beginning, in the aftermath
September 11th, President Bush tried to get the Taliband to turn over Osama
bin Laden, and the members of his al Qaeda terrorists to the United States to
face trial in the United States for their crimes. President Bush also stated
that the turning over of bin Laden and his associates was not negotiable.
This may seem a hard line, but I can think of at least two possible reasons
for his refusal to negotiate the matter with the Taliban government. First,
the Taliban had harbored and protected bin Laden's terrorist camps n
Afghanistan for a number of years. No one has ever suggested that Taliban
government was ignorant of what was taking place in those camps, and that
they did not know the deadly murderous work for which bin Laden's students
were being prepared. They were being prepared for war, for Jihad against the
West. The Taliban knew that, and they supported Osama and the al Qaeda, and
they are therefore accessories before and after the fact. They are
accomplices to the crimes committed on September 11th. I can readily
understand not dignifying accomplices to a crime by asking them to pass
judgment on it.
A second reason for not negotiating with the Taliban is that what took place
on September 11th, was not simply a criminal act. It was an act of war.
This is not just a police action designed to bring certain criminals to
trial. This is a war against our homeland and Western civilization. Our
declared enemy has said so, often enough, only I fear we wrote off Osama bin
Laden and what he said as the rantings of a madman. BUT HE MEANT IT, and he,
together with other Muslim extremists mean it, and they demonstrated their
intention to destroy us and all we hold dear. They instigated against us
total war, with no distinction between combatants and noncombatants.( Can
anyone not believe that they are pulling every stop, with Osama's money, to
get their hands on a nuclear device, from a source in that part of the world,
Russian, Pakistani, Indian, and the kind of people who planned and pulled off
Sept 11th, will for sure use it! ) For us to enter into negotiations
following September 11th, would be a lot like the US joining in negotiations
with Japan on December 8 of 1941. What was there to talk about?
However to speculate on what might have been, suppose the Taliban government
had said to the US that they were placing bin Laden and his al Qaeda
associates under arrest, and that they would be tried under their Sharia
legal code, and that all of the terrorist training camps would be closed
permanently. I do not know what the Sharia code prescribes for mass murder of
innocent persons, but my guess is it might be hanging, after a summary trial.
However, suppose Osama and his disciples were sentenced to life in prison.
We might protest, on the basis that we would like to try them ourselves since
the crime took place on American soil, but I sincerely believe there would
have been no bombing or military action by us. And at least Afghanistan would
have announced clearly to the Muslim world and to the rest of the world that
they would oppose terrorism and not tolerate terrorists on their soil.
Interesting?
Terry, you said:
I do not comprehend this one. Many times in the past, persons convicted of
crimes in the UK, or even those just indicted for committing crimes in the
UK, have tried to take refuge in the US. Scotland Yard notified law
enforcement authorities in this country,
who took immediate action to apprehend and hold the individuals pending the
legal extradition process. The UK likewise reciprocates with US, as do most
of the civilized
nations of the world. The difference in this case is that the government of
Afghanistan has been knowingly harboring the culprits for years, they can be
rightly construed as an accomplice to the crime, and this was not only a
crime, but an act of war!
Terry, you said
President Bush has repeatedly said that the aim of the United States is to
bring Osama bin Laden to justice, or bring justice to him.. I do not know
whether it was the media or the President who said our aim was "to bring him
back dead or alive", which is a caricature of the old American West, where
the sheriff goes out to bring in the desperado one way or the other.
However, actually, although we don't often say it, it is the standard for
most police work. If someone commits a crime in London, Scotland Yard goes
after him. If the culprit barricades himself in a house, and if the
arresting officers are met by a volley of gunfire, the unarmed London Bobbies
are not sent in as a Charge of the Light Brigade. Instead British SAS
Commandos are sent for, and the culprit is given another chance to surrender.
If he responds with more gunfire, the SAS will likely respond in kind, and
the culprit's life expectancy will drop sharply. In other words, they will
try to bring him in alive, but use greater force if necessary
Terry, our legal system is far from perfect but it is better than you
implied. In 1993, as you know, the World Trade Center was bombed for the
first time, by terrorists affiliated with bin Laden, with ONLY about 20
people killed and 200 injured. With good police work, some of the terrorists
were caught, and after lengthy trials, with competent defenses and full due
process, they are now serving life imprisonment. No one was shot on sight, no
one was executed without a trial. In 1998 our embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania were bombed by more of Osama's disciples, with this time ONLY 224
people killed, most of them African civilians who were simply walking down
the street. After lengthy trials, 4 men were convicted last Spring, and on
this past October 18, they were sentenced to life imprisonment. None of
these men displayed the slightest bit of remorse, and they devoted much of
their defense to repeating the tirades they had learned in their terrorist
training camps. Unfortunately, while the four were being convicted, at least
another dozen men, indicted in connection with the embassy bombings, the most
prominent being bin Laden, were at large and not available for trial. They
have been free to cause more death. None of them have been shot on sight or
executed without trial
Terry you said:
Terry, you said:
Terry, I agree whole heartedly with your last two comments, but I question
your first statement. I happen to believe the familiar adage that you do not
destroy ideas with bombs to be only a half truth. War is a horrible thing,
and the only good that comes out of it, is that in the aftermath, human
beings are given the opportunity to correct those conditions that caused the
war.
On December 7th, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. In the following
4 years, the intensive bombing campaigns and military actions by the Allied
Forces brought on the surrender of Japan, and ended the totalitarian rule of
Japan, the only type government that the people of Japan had ever known.
During the occupation, the American military under MacArthur, imposed on
Japan a democratic constitution, and that free and democratic rule has done
well over the past 50 years.--------- Also, during WW II, the heavy bombing
and military invasions launched by the Allied forces brought the end of
Hitler's reign of terror in Europe, the end of Holocaust, and during the
aftermath, in the military occupation of Germany, a democratic constitution
was imposed on Germany, at least on West Germany, and that was 50 years ago,
and prior to then that nation had known little in the way of free and
democratic rule. When unification took place, then all of Germany became
free of totalitarian rule. ----- More recently, the Serbian military a few
years ago were conducting "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo against the Albanian
Muslim Kosovars, who were living there. Some 2-3,000 of them were killed.
Under the auspices of NATO, the US launched an extensive bombing campaign in
Kosovo and Serbia, which drove the Serbian forces out Kosovo, which ended the
"ethnic cleansing," which made it possible for NATO to send in peacekeepers,
and which enabled those Serbian leaders who instigated the "cleansing" to be
arrested, charged with war crimes, and taken to the Hague, to be held pending
trial. Yes, war is a horrible thing, but the one good that can come of it is
to give men of good will in the aftermath the opportunity to rectify those
conditions that led to the war, and sometimes it indeed does happen.
To say the least, pursuing the present war in Afghanistan is certainly
somewhere between a monumental challenge and a deadly nightmare for all
parties. However, we can earnestly pray that what transpires in the
aftermath winds up being a blessing for the Afghan people who have suffered
so much for too many years. We can pray that it will bring an end to the
hijacking of the Afghan people, and the hijacking of a religion, and an end
to the kind of terrorism that we saw on September 11th. We can pray that the
diverse tribes and factions, who comprise Afghanistan and who have for years
(some would say for centuries)! been embroiled in a tribal war, can be
brought together in a broadly representative democratic form of government,
and provided the full support of the world community, to make it work. And
we can pray that out of this conflict, in the aftermath, emerges the new
Global order of which you spoke, where all nations "base our actions on what
is just and fair."
Terry, you are a good man. I do sincerely wish that the Lord God had made a
lot more men like you on this earth! And may he continue to lead and bless
you.
+Ben
Dear Bishop [Benitez],
I have a spare moment this afternoon and will attempt to respond to some
of the telling points you made in your last email to me for which I thank
you. We need a healthy and robust debate on the present world situation
and I am grateful that you are willing to discuss with me in public.
I asked the question why is was that the Taliband were not taken at their
word when it was said that they were willing to hand bin Laden over should
they be presented with solid evidence of his involvement in the terrorist
acts committed in the USA. Since then Judy Goans presented us with an
informative email in which she said that there were discussions both with
the American Administration and with Islamic leaders. Whatever the case
the fact is that these discussion were not prolonged and the perception
(that word again) of many throughout the world was that the USA had no
intention whatsoever of discussing with the Taliband. We shall have to
wait for further details to be revealed but my suspicions are that the USA
regarded (understandably)the acts in the USA as the last straw and were
determined to finish the Taliband come what may. IF that is the case then
the reaction is understandable BUT it will not, in my opinion deal with
the root of the problem. I wonder if enough effort was put into finding a
long term peaceful resolution to this matter.Are we still so immature as a
species that our reaction to hurt and injury is to hit back and cause
further heartbreak. If this is considered to be 'a soft liberal attitude'
then one must ask the question how do we translate the words of Christ
from the realm of interpersonal relationships to the world of
International affairs?
I made a passing comment about IRA terrorists being sheltered in the USA
and you responded by saying that the rule of law was always respected in
these matters. Well, admittedly, things have improved in recent years but
there were cases where individuals were given shelter and protection and
money was openly collected for the IRA in the USA. This was at a time when
bombing both in Ireland and on the UK mainland was rife. However, the
main point of the comment was to point to the fact that the world of
International relations is in fact a moral swamp. You must be aware of the
fact that the USA has in the past trained insurgents in the USA especially
so that they will cause disruption in Latin American countries which do
not fall in line with the USA.How different (in moral terms) is that from
the action of the Taliband in sheltering bin Laden? What about the
bombing of Cambodia? Morally justified?
Since we began this exchange I have been reading mail sent to the Bishops
list. I imagine 'in house' issues are of considerable interest to you all
but I can't help feeling that if only you would spend as much time and
energy in thinking about some of the grave moral issues that face us in
the world of international affairs then your own domestic problems might
find their rightful place in your agenda.
You say that you only half agree with my statement 'you do not destroy
ideas with bombs'. Well, let me be rash and gaze into the future. Always a
dangerous thing to do. I fear then the West has been drawn into the tribal
warfare that has been a part of life in Afghanistan for far too long.When
it is over there will be a terrible mess to clear up and the country will
be mainly forgotten. Next week I will be in Kosovo giving aid to a
programme I am supporting which assists the real victims of war-women and
children. Many of the women have been raped and the children suffer
dreadfully as a result of the horrors they have witnessed. Our little team
of local counsellors does the best they can with what support we can
scrape together from men and women of good will. Not many are
interested,'the war is over lets get stuck into the next one' is the
message these victims receive from the West. I have little doubt that the
Taliband will be defeated in the long run and bin Laden may well be
captured. If only it were so simple. One day we in the West are going to
have to deal with the massive resentment that is building up in the poor
communities of this world. For one bin Laden captured another dozen will
arise. I do not in any way glorify the actions of the so called 'third
world' leaders. They have much to answer for. All I can say is that sooner
or later it would be wise for the West to begin to base it's actions on
what is just and morally right. The Christian Church ought to be in the
midst of this debate contributing to what is indeed a complex and
difficult issue.
In conclusion I do realise that all of us are in fact 'locked' into our
own cultures and find it hard to see issues from the perspective of those
vastly different situations from ourselves. Difference need not be
divisive. It can be creative. How do we make it so in today's complex
world? Not, I suggest by bombs and warfare. We have to be a little wiser
than that.
Thank you for your courtesy in allowing me to write on your list.
Sincerely,
Terry Waite CBE
Statistics courtesy of
WebCounter.
>
> Terry,
>
> Bishop Benitez takes you on in this post.
>
> I would welcome any statement you might like to make to the nearly
> 1,000 bishops, deputies, and ECUSA employees who participate in this
> list. I have set the mailer to receive posts from
> terry@PINKHOUSE.DEMON.CO.UK, and if you like, I will send you any
> related messages that might appear.
>
> I rejoice in your ministry of reconciliation.
>
> Lutibelle/Louie
> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:48:53
> From: BenTex747@aol.com
>To: BishopsDeputies@justus.anglican.org
>Subject: Re:[HoB/D] An Indictment of the HOB
>A Response to Jan Nunley from +Ben Benitez
> article that I circulated, and especially for your moving essay about
> Terry Waite.
> I happen to know him, as we had the privilege of entertaining Terry
> in Houston several years ago, soon after he had been released from
> captivity and after he had written his first book. He is truly one of
> the most Godly men I have ever met, and I declare without equivocation
> that he is far closer to God's Kingdom than I have ever been. You
> captured him well in your essay.
>
> My favorite Terry Waite story is about an incident that took place
> before he was taken hostage, and during the time in which he was going
> back and forth to Lebanon, seeking to negotiate the release of the
> hostages who were then being held in Beirut, all with much publicity
> on British television.
>
> The then Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, invited Terry to
> take a few days of "holiday" with him in the North of England. As
> they were walking down the main road in that village, and walking past
> the village pub, a man standing in the doorway of the pub cried out,
> "Hey, I know who you are! You are Terry Waite! I have seen you on
> the Tely! Hey", he called out to every one inside the pub, "There is
> Terry Waite, in our village!" Then the man called out, "Terry, won't
> you come inside? It would be an honor.for us to buy you a pint of
> bitters (beer)!" And then looking at Terry's companion, Robert
> Runcie, who was traveling incognito, wearing a tie instead of a
> collar, the man said to Terry, "And bring your chum with you!"
> Now, Jan, to get serious, and to get to your point in telling us about
> Terry Waite, I wish to respond to a few of his comments, and yours, in
> your posting to me. First, I find differing with Terry Waite is very
> hard for me, as there no one whom I admire more, and he speaks with a
> stature and a personal knowledge of the Middle East that certainly I
> do not have. Nevertheless, my conscience leads me to try. He said
> that the remedy for the terrorism of Sept 11th "is not simple, and is
> not be found in military aggression, for we are engulfed in a moral
> mess which demands a new approach." In my opinion no one is happy
> over us going to war, launching bombing campaigns, and sending our
> young and finest in harms way. If Terry, or anyone, could devise a
> peaceful and effective way to address terrorism, to bring to justice
> those who planned and instigated and supported those hijackers, (who
> that day murdered and incinerated 6000 people) , there is no one who
> rejoice more than I would. War is a terrible thing and inevitably
> innocent people suffer.
>
> However, a prime responsibility of any government, including ours in
> the United States, is to protect and defend its people.
> Since September 11th, our government has had the obligation to bring
> to justice Osama bin Laden, and his al Queda terrorist organization,
> to justice, or alternately bring justice to them.
> Does anyone have an alternative approach to a bombing campaign and a
> military action by the United States and the nations of the Coalition,
> aimed at bringing down the Taliban government in Afghanistan, that is
> supporting Osama and his fellows terrorists.
> After all, he already has been legally indicted for the bombing of
> the US embassies in Africa, killing 200 people, most of whom were
> Africans walking down the streets, but Osama and his cohorts do not
> respond to subpoenas very well. If there were mass murders being
> perpetrated in your City, could your City legal system avoid sending
> out armed policemen to try to bring in the murderer, bringing him to
> justice. Could your Mayor, and Police Chief, declare that in the
> interest of non violence, they instead would initiate negotiations
> with him, or could they declare they were going to start working to
> resolve the social problems of the world, such as poverty and economic
> inequities, that led the murderer to commit such atrocities, and when
> these social problems are cured, declare that there would then be no
> more such murders to worry about. Your Mayor does not have any such
> luxury, nor does the President of the United States.
> The Archbishop Canterbury recently said, " I am a Christian leader,
> but I hope I speak for every one of us when I say that we are called
> by God to resist evil, to pursue justice for all and seek to live in
> peace and harmony with our neighbor." The British Prime Minister,
> Tony Blair, not exactly a stodgy conservative, recently said ( I lost
> the quote, but this is close to what he said), " If those hijackers,
> rather than killing 6,000 people, had been able to kill 60,000, or
> 600,000, they would have rejoiced." I will add that had the hijackers
> being able to obtain a small nuclear device, they would have joyfully
> detonated it in Times Square, and murdered a few million!
> For them, the more the merrier.
> Afghanistan, under the Taliban government, has become the world center
> if international terrorism. The Talibans have imposed a brutal and
> oppressive rule over the people of Afghanistan, including Sharia, the
> onerous legal system, the worst features of which are ruthless. The
> United States, together with other nations of the Coalition, has
> launched the present campaign to end that Taliban rule in Afghanistan,
> to end that brutal tyranny, to bring to justice those behind the
> murderous attacks of September 11th, and to try to eradicate the evils
> of terrorism in this world, so that other nations in the years to come
> will not face the same horrors we faced last month. An additional aim
> of the present military action, is to try in the aftermath to provide
> a setting whereby the United Nations can help create a new government,
> that is representative of all of the factions of the people of
> Afghanistan, a government that is supported by the United States and
> the other Coalition nations, with all possible economic aid, and
> probably with UN peace keepers from nations around the world for a
> period of time.
> Our friend Terry seems to feel that the motivation behind the
> terrorism emanating from the Middle East is the grave economic
> inequities in the world, the fact that we in the West are rich and
> they are poor, that we are well fed and they are hungry. It is as
> though the Islamic extremists, who are the terrorists, are really
> social revolutionaries, driven by the poverty around them, seeking to
> bring down the wealthy of the world, and spread their wealth to the
> poor. (If that were the case, their violence would be aimed first at
> the Royal family in Saudi Arabia, who consume 90% of the Nation's oil
> income, and who live in sheer luxury, rather than at the United
> States. Osama bin Laden is not exactly a poor man, but rather he is a
> billionaire!
> Whereas, certainly world poverty and economic inequities may be some
> part of the motivation of the terrorists, I believe the main reason
> driving the Islamic extremists and the suicide bombers, is that they
> have been taught in their religious schools and they believe it, that
> the United States is the GREAT SATAN! The see our movies and TV, and
> read our literature, and they regard ours as a decadent culture,
> IMMORAL and GODLESS. They despise our Western freedoms, they hate our
> liberation of women, which they regard as an affront to God! They
> hate the influence of the West which they feel is steadily corrupting
> the Middle East, which they want to be a pure and holy Islamic land,
> They despise those American military bases in Saudi Arabia which have
> been there since the Gulf War, because to are too close to sacred
> Islamic holy sites. And, of course, they despise us, because we
> support Israel, whom they want driven into the Sea, with all of that
> land restored to the Palestinians. The prime motivation of those
> suicide bombers is not an economic one, but a religious one, to which
> they are fanatically devoted. The Israelis have been under attack by
> suicide bombers for years.
> The very word Islam means "submission", and the faithful are to be
> submissive to Allah, and to his spokespersons as well, the Imams, the
> Mullahs, their theologians, who in those schools in Pakistan that we
> see on TV, fan the flames of hatred of the West, and motivate the
> students (all men, no women) to become holy warriors and join the
> Jihad, join the Talibans in Afghanistan. Terry said our bombing would
> only raise up a new generation of suicide bombers, but they have been
> doing that for years. Long before September 11th, those schools were
> cranking out young men, who for the past 10 years have been going to
> Osama bin Laden's terrorist training camps in Afghanistan,. which have
> graduated an estimated 20,000 students over these years. The first
> targets our bombing over this past month have been those camps, trying
> to blow these camps to pieces, and destroy, at least substantially,
> his capacity to train new warriors, which along with freezing his
> funds around the world, should reduce Osama's and the al Queda's
> capacity to perpetrate more evil deeds.
>
> Certainly, not all Muslims are extremists, but the Islamic moderates
> in the Middle East and through out the world, are strongly influenced
> by, intimidated by, and many petrified of the Islamic extremists. The
> moderates are often the first targets of the extremists. And the
> Islamic extremists are the most rapidly growing, and most fanatical
> Islamic group in the world. Did you notice how mild the criticism by
> the moderate Muslims , both in this Country and in the rest of the
> world, has been of the carnage on the 11th of September. I was
> fascinated by the TV coverage of President Bush's visit to the Islamic
> Cultural Center in Washington a few days after September 11th, which
> he made as a gesture to Muslims, that the war being launched by the
> United States was not against the Muslim religion, but against
> terrorism. he spoke eloquently of the Islamic religion being one of
> peace and love and compassion.
> The Director of the Center, in his response, said little about the
> terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, no word of
> condemnation, nor an expression of condolences for the families of the
> victims. He instead simply extolled the wonders of Islamic culture in
> the world!
>
> Jan, you and Terry, as well as many others are critical of the
> military action launched by the United States and other Coalition
> nations aimed at eradicating terrorism in the world, and bringing to
> justice those responsible for the September 11th carnage. The
> necessity of having to do so is certainly regrettable, but in my
> opinion the United States and the other civilized nations of the world
> have no alternative.
>
> May God bless you, may He bless our Church, May He bless our President
> and this Nation, May He bless and hold in the palm of His hand the
> grieving families of the victims of September 11th, and May He bless
> all of His children in Afghanistan,
>
> +Ben (Benitez) (I think I have already said enough for a while on this
> network, so after this posting, I will sit back listen to the rest of you.)
From: BenTex747@aol.com
To: BishopsDeputies@justus.anglican.org
Subject: RE: [HoB/D] TerryWaite responds to Bishop Benitez
> Why, was it, that in the early days when the Taliband said that if they were
> presented with evidence, they would consider handing bin Laden over, were
they
> not taken at their word?
> So if the USA refuses to hand over the British courts IRA terrorists
convicted of
> crimes in the UK do we bomb Baltimore?
> If it is true that the President has ordered that bin Laden could be
killed, then it is
> a sad lookout for us all. What will America then have to say to any
Nation that in > future singles out an individual for
execution without trial?
> History teaches that you do not destroy ideas with bombs. -----
> First, there has to be a totally new relationship between the so called
'developed'
> world and the 'developing' world. ----------
> One day we are going to have to learn to develop a new Global order and we
are
> going to have to base our actions on what is just and fair.
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:24:08 GMT
From: "Terry Waite" terry@pinkhouse.demon.co.uk
To: BishopsDeputies@justus.anglican.org
Subject: Terry Waite replies (yet again!) to +Ben.
Please sign my guestbook and
view it.
My site has been accessed
times since February 14, 1996.
