(The blog formerly known as) All Things Counter Terrorism

Below is a translation of the questions Abu Walid posed to me last year, and my (very overdue) response. I’d like to thank him for his patience and trust in me. Abu Walid answered all of my questions on the basis of my undertaking to also respond, but due to thesis issues I wasn’t  able to dedicate the time and attention these questions deserved until I took a break over the recent holiday season.

Abu Walid’s letter to me and his questions are in Italics. My responses are in plain type underneath them.

Free for citation.

Mrs Leah Farrall

After greetings..

A period of diversion has passed that allows me to again continue the dialogue with you. And it is in this dialogue that I find a good opportunity to further clarify more facts. And I think that this a common goal between us. Therefore I hope that the results in general offer benefits–the dimensions of which we cannot yet estimate.

Our current dialogue is the fruit of an initiative from you as an academic researcher with a background in the thorny subject of “terrorism” and “counter terrorism”.  Therefore I consider that the credit for any future positive results of this dialogue returns to you personally.

Since the result of this work may be the removal of many points of ambiguity and misunderstanding  in the  conflict/not between individuals/ but between peoples and nations and civilisations. Therefore the subject is very serious and greater than just (a security problem). It is a real conflict that has so far resulted in many tragedies and may in the future  result in something worse than this.

I hope that our dialogue will be a step towards a common understanding and human relations between the natural and fair people. That is a goal worth working for and sacrificing for. It also illustrates the importance of the brave step you have taken to open the door to such a dialogue and continuation of it.

Your brave work pleased many and I hope that it benefits millions of people. But, unfortunately, there are those who do not like it and will seek to stop it at all costs, because the situations of tension and ongoing conflict, and the destruction and bloodshed, are considered by some as a successful commercial investment, and for others  it is a preferable lifestyle  and a reason to exist.

It won’t be strange that we see reactions of surprise and shock a short time after the beginning of a dialogue between the (terrorist) and (counter-terrorist) in a step that amazed many, and I  cannot deny that it amazed me personally. I did not think in my mind that this would happen one day.

The new in this dialogue is that it is not taking place under any pressure, and is almost equal. We have seen many of the repressive governments (dialogue) secretly in the cells of darkness with their detainees held under the oppression and torture, then they publish the results of that (dialogue), which results in the traditional declaration of repentance and regret on the part of (terrorists) that they were deceived and then realised  thanks to expert instruction of torture.

Of course the whole picture is faked and serves the tyrannical goals. And shows excessive contempt for human rights and wastes their humanity and with it their abilities of understanding and thinking.

Now we talk publicly and from a far distance – away from the torture and oppression.  Therefore we are about to reach approximate parity/but not completely/ when one party in the dialogue is living under house arrest and security guardianship whose limit is not known and its reasons or the goal of it is also unknown.

Briefly, the positive results of the dialogue and their extent can not be estimated now–as well as the extent of resistance for its continuation, and  the obstruction of positives expected from it, which would also be of major dimensions that can not be estimated now.

“Mrs Farrall”…

I expect that our dialogue is just a step on the path of a thousand miles. And it is a brave and fair step and I hope that it continues and expands to include multiple levels and many people from both teams.

And you will always be favoured for the creative and bold beginning.

I offer you now a set of questions that comes to mind at this hour. I do not exclude that other questions emerge during the dialogue, which I do not know to what extent can continue.  It is natural to expect that we will come to varying degrees of agreement or disagreement. And each party will be free to answer in detail or briefly or to abstain from answering when necessary. Although it is not preferable in open dialogue like this.

For your questions, which have come to me, I do not see what is lost from answering all of them. But some of them alerted me to the necessity of writing detailed research around them. And others drew my attention to points that deserve more attention in research and the presentation of more than I had provided in the past. Thus, I find myself benefiting from a discussion with a specialised academic mind with a strong and independent personality.

I hope that everyone benefits with us from our exciting and interesting discussion. The most important is that all humanity benefits from the direction towards truth, justice and equality among human beings.

1. Your treatment of the subject (terrorism) is especially concentrated on the security side. And the description of the issue and its  characterisation as a security problem. That is why it is necessary to describe the other party as a (criminal) or a (terrorist) according to your term. While the problem is at its basis and essence political, linked to your aggression against the other countries and their wealth and intervention in their internal affairs and your attempts to reformulate their ideals and culture and even their religion.  Followed in that by using extreme means of aggression and violence: cultural and political and even to using armies and the occupation of the homelands.  And if you face resistance, you describe the resisters as terrorists, and you deal with them as criminals who you must chase, arrest, and even torture (to obtain the security information from them).

You approved for yourselves/in the name of security/to commit all kinds of inhuman crimes and you did not give the others a right to speech or to express their opinion peacefully or to exercise the natural right to self-defence of the homeland, culture and beliefs.

The question here is:

A. Why are you concentrating on the subject (terrorism) and reducing all these other thorny serious issues in a single word that offends us and injures our feelings and makes us feel despair of you and to any opportunity for peacemaking between us??

I am not sure who you are referring to when you write “us”. Do you mean Muslims in general or are you talking about the ‘resisters’? My reason for asking is that I do not believe that all Muslims despair for an opportunity at peacemaking because I don’t believe that they all think there is a civilisational war going on—if this is what you were referring to when mentioning “us” and peacemaking.  For example; if this was the case, al Qaeda who claims to fight under these auspices, would have more than just a few hundred members from the 1.57 billion Muslims living in the world, who clearly do not follow its cause and abhor its violence.

You raise a good point about terrorism being considered solely through the prism of security. It is a political issue, as well as a criminal issue and a moral issue.

My personal opinion is that that acts of violence or threats of violence that comprise ‘terrorism’ are criminal and so in this way terrorism is a criminal issue.  I do not believe it is a security issue, because a security issue in the broadest sense implies an existential threat—a threat to a country’s (or the world’s) very existence. I do not believe that terrorism poses an existential security threat.  I think that treating acts of terror carried out by small illegitimate criminal groups solely as a security issue only legitimises and empowers these groups. I believe terrorists should be treated for what they are—criminals. Anything else only glorifies them.

While there is a need to prevent people from carrying out acts of violence, I do recognise that problems feeding, exacerbating or even driving these acts of violence need to be resolved and that this needs to be through political means wherever possible.  However, a political grievance should not carry over into premeditated acts of violence, and when it does it becomes criminal.

B. The Americans said that their abnormal security behaviour was according to decisions of President Bush and therefore it is legal. We will not therefore ask about (the law) or (the justice) in America and the West more generally, only I ask you for your personal opinion –and not official–on the following measures:

These are difficult questions for me to answer Abu Walid because I am only one person. And I must confess I do feel a bit like a lightning rod.  But since I asked for this dialogue, I accept that and I’m willing to answer all your questions. I do hope, however, we can open up your questions for others to respond—as you indicated in your letter.

1. The kidnapping of civilians from the streets and shipping them to Guantanamo as (enemy fighters) according to the hideous “Rumsfeld” term.

I do not support the taking of people off the streets unless it is a legitimate arrest by a law enforcement agency in the country in which the arrest is taking place.  I also do not support sending anyone to a territory hosting a detention facility that operates outside international law, such as Guantanamo Bay or Ghost Prisons.

2. Putting a price on the heads. And encouraging weak people from the public, and corrupt security personnel in the countries of the underdeveloped world with big financial rewards if they kidnap the innocents and sell them, like slaves were sold, to the American Security departments and consider them as (terrorist leaders)?

I do not support paying mercenaries or using vigilantes to capture people, especially if those people are not subject to arrest warrants.  The lack of accountability is unacceptable and means that innocent people get caught up. In terms of military practice on a battlefield, I do not know about those procedures and practices, but I firmly believe these should also be according to international rules and norms relating to prisoners of war.

3. Considering whoever was in Afghanistan in 2001 who was not an Afghan as a terrorist. And arrest them and torture them indefinitely, without any trial. Or release  of some after years without a trial or compensation or even an apology. Or deport them back to their original countries or to a third country with a compulsory recommendation of putting them in prisons or permanently under strict security supervision.

I do not support detention without cause and I absolutely do not support torture. Under no circumstances is it acceptable and its use is in violation of international law. I also do not support the detention of persons without trial for indefinite periods. If people are wanted in their home countries, I see no problem returning them – subject to the correct procedures and protocols regarding extradition in both countries being followed.

4. The reliance on the security reports as a final reference to the judge when considering the status of the cases of those accused of terrorism.

I do not support the use of intelligence as a final reference in legal proceedings such as those at Guantanamo. Intelligence is not evidence and it should never be used in lieu of evidence or as the primary material in the prosecution of a person accused of any crime. This is why I firmly believe that terrorism must be treated as a criminal issue and that terrorists should be tried under the rule of law through the criminal justice system.  This requires that they be tried on the basis of evidence and not intelligence or hearsay.

5. The approval of the principle (the secret evidence) that no one except the security departments know about. It forms the reasons for the issuing of final judgements that are harsh and illogical.

I believe that the judicial system is the best place for trials to be conducted and that an open and transparent process of justice needs to take place. There are some instances when revealing evidence publically can jeopardise other investigations or reveal sensitive information. However, when this is the case there are mechanisms in place within most legal systems to deal with this.

6. The non-disclosure of secret prisons (their locations—the persons detained in them– the charges directed against them and the evidence for that etc)

I do not agree with secret prisons operating outside of the rule of law and the control and function of government, and without the knowledge of the population. I do not believe this is acceptable under any circumstances. I also do not think it is acceptable for people to be ghost prisoners, where no one knows their location or the reasons for which they are being held.

7. The practice of torture as a routine procedure in cases of (terrorism) and making it an agreed constitution between all the security departments all over the world.

As I said earlier, I do not support the use of torture under any circumstances or by any party.  Torture is not an agreed upon constitution between all the security departments in the world. Not everyone tortures, and not everyone agrees with it. My country does not torture. Many countries abhor the practice. I would also like to point out here that even within America, when it did torture, many Americans stood up and argued against it and against Guantanamo and against using ghost prisons in other countries.

You may want to read the information at the following link http://www.campaigntobantorture.org/ and also here http://www.cvt.org/

So I do not agree with your statement that everyone tortures or that it constitutes a practice agreed upon the world over.

8. The lack of public trials, natural and fair, for the accused in cases of (terrorism). And the insistence on making everything a secret and away from the eyes of everyone. Using the pretext/everybody knows it is fabricated and a lie/they say (the reasons are for the preservation of secrets concerning national security).

I refer to my answer in question 5. I would also add that I do not accept the need for military commissions based on the issue of the preservation of intelligence.

I also think the issue also comes down to whether or not one sees terrorism as a criminal issue or an act of war, because the means of dealing with it changes. Personally, I do not support seeing terrorism as an act of war and using military commissions to prosecute terrorists. I think that it only confers legitimacy on the actions of terrorists. While terrorism is an often an extraordinarily violent form of crime, it is a crime nonetheless and so I believe that the criminal justice system is the appropriate means through which to deal with terrorists.

9. The West’s insistence on treating cases of so called (terrorism) as a security issue and not a political issue.

Terrorism is a political issue, a criminal issue and a moral issue. I understand your point that political grievance does play a large part in terrorism and reactions to it. The issue is when political grievance translates into premeditated violent activity that breaks the law.

10. To preserve the future of security in the West they assign security departments in the underdeveloped world to do their dirty work, such as severe torture, which often led to death. They send the detainees there (to complete the investigation with them). They consider that an international assignment, and punish the countries that abstain. And actually you can hardly find many governments who won’t do it because this work is considered work that will allow them to become closer to the west and receive rewards and all kinds of support and benefits. Can this be considered as a noticeable cultural development in Western countries? Or a means to spread its message of Western democracy in the world?

I do not agree with the rendition of detainees to third world countries to be interrogated and tortured. My country to my knowledge has never done this. I think that this practice is a blight on the name of democracy. So in terms of being a noticeable development I can’t say clearly enough that it is a shameful one, which should never be repeated.

To that end I’d like to point out that both candidates in the last US Presidential election were against torture.  One of the very first things Obama did when he came into office was to outlaw torture in an effort to return America to its cores values –which its use of torture completely undermined.

As I mentioned earlier, before he came to office a good number of Americans protested their country’s use of torture because it undermined the core values of the country. And as  I have said earlier my country does not torture people.

11. Under what right does the US chase and charge and arrest and imprison anyone in the world who it does not like. Also sending its security departments to do this devils work. And also force the countries of the third world to abandon their sovereignty and their duty to look after their citizens, and to do that by various methods of persuasion and coercion and political and economic pressure and even the threat of military action?

I am not American so I cannot tell you about what right it justifies doing so, or the laws supporting such action –if there are any. I do not think that America should be able to act with impunity. But I would also point out that it is by no means the only country to do so.

12. Does the US and the west in general think that these (terrorists) and the civilisation they belong to will be finally eradicated, as happened with the indigenous people in America and Australia? Or that those people will continue and remain? Because the balance of power between the nations is continuously changing over time, and consequently a time (for fair trials) definitely will come sooner or later? {{*NB here Abu Walid is referring to the right to justice.}}

I have never thought that the fight against terrorism had anything to do with eradicating another culture or civilisation. It has to do with bringing al Qaeda to justice, which I think the vast majority of the 1.57 billion Muslims in the world would support since Muslims have been the primary victims of its attacks.

Question here is:

Are you seeking to annihilate us ethnically as you did with the ancient indigenous civilisations in your country? Or are you completely safe and confident that we will not one day get the ability for fair trials? Or maybe you feel very secure and confident that we will not get the ability for fair trials (I do not say retaliation, and the difference between them is very big). {{*NB Again here Abu Walid is referring to the right to justice.}}

Or that you only focus on your current moment of superiority, and you are not concerned with what the future will bring??

Again, in relation to “us” are you speaking on behalf of Muslims, or Afghans, or al Qaeda, or all of these?

I do not believe that anyone is trying to eradicate a civilisation or culture, if this is what you are talking about.  If, for example, we were seeking to annihilate Muslims why would so many people and governments have given aid to help Indonesia, when the Tsunami struck and decimated Aceh?

As I said earlier, I do not believe that the ¼ of humanity that Muslims comprise believe that we are trying to eradicate them. Most of us live peacefully together. Ok, so it is not a perfect peace, but the number of people fighting compared to the number of people going about their lives speaks volumes. And I don’t accept the argument that US or Western Colonial rule forces them to be subjugated. A quarter of the world’s population is a huge number of people.

If you are talking of annihilating groups like al Qaeda, who use violence, mostly against Muslims, then I guess you could say yes, there are many people the world over, Muslims and non-Muslims, who would like to see al Qaeda brought to justice. You will notice I use the term justice not annihilation. I believe al Qaeda should be brought to justice.

Regarding fair trials and justice: I would like to ask your opinion on a few questions I have.

What about the right of Muslims to justice and their right to see al Qaeda brought to justice? The victims of al Qaeda’s violence are overwhelmingly Muslim. What about the right to justice of their families and loved ones?

What about the right of Afghans to justice, and their right to see al Qaeda held accountable for bringing war to their country? Al Qaeda sacrificed them and their country to fight against America.  Why did Mullah Omar not bring al Qaeda and specifically bin Laden to justice—especially since bin Laden disobeyed his orders? Even if he did not want to hand him over to America why did he not punish bin Laden for killing Muslims on 9/11?

What about the right to justice for the families of Afghans who have died at the hands of the Taliban (and more have died at their hands this year than coalition forces)?

In the last:

Allow me here to present the verses of an Arab poet:

Always remember

America – with all its glory—

Is not the almighty noble Allah

And America—with all its extreme strength—

Will not prevent the birds flying

Can kill the adult…Rifle

Small…In the hands of a small child

This poet is not (terrorist), he is a Muslim but he was not an “Islamist”.  He is a secular Arab, but he is a poet who became agitated by the grief of his Ummah for a long period time and then he left.  It is the great Syrian poet Nizar Qabbani. If circumstances permit, I will send you the rest of the poem as it is worth reading.

{{NB I have uploaded the full poem Abu Walid sent to me in another post, which you can find here.}}

I will not explain the symbolic picture the poet painted ( by the adult, which could be killed, by a rifle in the hands of a small child). It is clear. But if we expanded our imagination your civilisation may be that adult,  and our mujahideen (the terrorists) the youth by their simple means are the young child.

In the coming future what is now unknown will be revealed and many mistakes will be corrected.

That is why our bet for the future is very big.

This part of the questions concerns your country Australia:

Abu Walid I have answered your questions on the basis of my own personal opinion. As I am sure you understand I can’t speak for other Australians or the previous or current government.

What are the reasons you have sent your military forces to kill the Afghan people?

The reason our military forces are in Afghanistan is that al Qaeda killed Australians on 9/11. I also think that our alliance with America was invoked when al Qaeda attacked but I am not 100% sure about that. Our forces are not there to kill Afghans. In any case, our forces were dispatched as part of the fight against al Qaeda, and because the Taliban refused to stop harbouring bin Laden, against the Taliban too. They were sent to bring al Qaeda to justice.

What crime did these poor people commit?

The Afghan people committed no crime. Al Qaeda committed the crime and brought this fate upon the Afghan people, something you yourself have argued. Moreover, at the expense of the Afghan people the Taliban harboured bin Laden and his group. I would like to ask you a question here: what about all the civilians who have died at the hands of the Taliban over the years? What crime did they commit? This year the Taliban were responsible for 70% of civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

Do not say that you are there to fight the Taliban and not the Afghan people.  Because this is not true since events confirm that the Afghan people support the Taliban movement.  Without this the movement could not continue to be victorious against the western armies there.

And do not say that your armies went there to fight al Qaeda, because you are sure/like us/ that al Qaeda has in Afghanistan only a few people. Also the events of 9/11 had no connection with the Taliban, but on the contrary there were very strict instructions from Mullah Omar to bin Laden not to provoke the United States.

I do not agree with you that events confirm the Afghan people support the Taliban. People are voting. They are not forced to vote. Instead the Taliban tried to intimate them into not voting, going so far as to kill them. But people still voted, even though the system is far from perfect, suffers from corruption and some would say is deeply flawed. They still voted and that vote was a strong statement against the dogmatism of the Taliban.

Also, I don’t understand how you can claim that the Taliban movement is supported by the entire population when it never had full control of Afghanistan–even before the events of 9/11. A movement that is supported would have no need to intimidate people, leaving letters under their door in the middle of the night. A movement that is supported by the people would not have collapsed so easily in late 2001. And a movement that is supported by the people would have no need to threaten its own people and take them hostage and execute them.

I recognise that many people are fighting the occupation of the country by foreign forces but that does not necessarily translate into support for the Taliban. It means they do not like being occupied. I do not need to tell you about Afghanistan’s history in this respect. Many of them might fight the Taliban if it were to try to take over power again. I think most people would not want to see them return. In fact a good half of the population probably feels that way – the women of Afghanistan, who the Taliban subjugated.

And yes, al Qaeda in Afghanistan has only a few people in the country now. But it had more before 9/11 and the presence of the organisation in Afghanistan and its actions was why this war started.

And I do agree with you that the organisation is much smaller than is commonly alleged. But this brings me to an important question I want to ask you:  If this was the case why couldn’t (or wouldn’t) Mullah Omar control them, if its numbers were as small as you say? Or even if they were larger? And why didn’t he immediately punish bin Laden after 9/11? Why didn’t he bring him to justice or hand him over to an international court of justice or to America? Why was he allowed to escape justice? If bin Laden did not have that many followers it wouldn’t have been difficult to bring him to justice or hand him over, even forcibly. You have asked me a lot of questions about the issue of justice and how you feel the war on Afghanistan is unjust. So I would like to ask you why bin Laden was not held accountable for killing civilians and bringing war on Afghanistan?

Don’t you think that you still owe these people great favours because they made it possible for you to defeat the Soviet beast, who you and the others used to fear?

I think the Afghan people were very brave fighting the Soviet occupation and suffered greatly from this occuption. I do think  that more western aid should have been provided after they withdrew.

But here I have a question for you. I also do not understand how you can say Afghanistan required favours but then say that the west should keep its nose out of affairs in the country. It helped you fight the Soviets, and yes I accept this was for self aggrandizing reasons.  But I wonder that even if it had given more aid after they withdrew, whether this would then cause an accusation of meddling in the country’s affairs? To be honest it seems like no matter what it does, the accusations will fly from some people who seem determined to see only bad in the west.

If in the future it is proven/ or if the Americans admit, or if some of the hidden facts reveal that their war against Afghanistan was unjust and the reasons were manufactured like what happened in Iraq/ are you ready to apologise to the Afghan people or pay reparations to the people who were harmed in Afghanistan?

The war in Afghanistan is a tragedy for the Afghan people but it is not a manufactured one. And since we already know why it occurred—because of al Qaeda, who were harboured by the Taliban—I do not think that this will eventuate.

Al Qaeda caused the invasion of Afghanistan. You and I both know that.  No one wanted to invade it before, especially not America. I know you have an enduring interest in China and Chinese Political and Military thought so I do not need to tell you that before 9/11 the Bush administration was preoccupied with the threat of China. Do you remember all of the literature about the new Cold War between them? Why would America bother with Afghanistan when it was so worried about the threat from China and at that point in time so determined to counteract this threat?

The war is about bringing al Qaeda to justice. To ensure that al Qaeda can never again operate from Afghanistan and that criminal groups who take violence into their own hands and operate outside the rules of international law are brought to justice.

As for reparations, a huge amount of money is already being provided for aid and reconstruction projects in Afghanistan. This money has funded bridges and roads and  schools and agricultural projects. All of this is to help Afghanistan. For example there are now 8 million children in schools, compared to the 800 000 children who went to school under the Taliban regime (all of who were boys). There are now 2.4 million girls in school.

And here I wanted to ask you why you support the Taliban’s destruction of this infrastructure and targeting of people trying to help the Afghans with aid projects? Why does it intentionally destroy the things that will help the country rebuild and alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people?

Does the Taliban pay reparations or compensation to the families of innocent people it kills in its attacks against foreign forces, who are in the country because it harboured bin Laden? Does the Taliban pay reparations to people who lose their livelihood and ability to support their family as a result of its destruction of the infrastructure they need?

And why would the west even consider reparations if the Taliban destroys infrastructure? More importantly why would the west pay reparations when it was attacked from Afghan territory?  I know the Afghan people did not start the war. America knows the Afghan people did not start it. Everyone knows this. It was al Qaeda, but at the end of the day the Taliban harboured al Qaeda. This is why people want to support the Afghan population to rebuild their country because we all know the Afghan people did not do this. And we all know that many of them did not support the Taliban but couldn’t do anything about it because of its suppression and hold on power. The Afghan people clearly do not want a return to the previous situation or they would not have gone out to vote.

As for apologies, we are probably going to go around in circles here. I would like to know if Mullah Omar is ready to apologise to his people for hosting bin Laden or failing to control him and so causing the Afghan people all this harm?  Or for attacking his own people and launching intimidation campaigns against Afghans who are only trying to go about their business and survive yet another war—one that he brought upon them by his hosting of bin Laden.

I know Mullah Omar is  probably not inclined to ever apologise to America for allowing it to be attacked from Afghanistan when it was under his rule, but surely he could apologise to his own people if he considers himself their leader? Is he ready to apologise for choosing one man (a man who willingly sacrificed him and all of Afghanistan) over his country? I really do not understand why he didn’t even apologise to his own people or put bin Laden on trial for his disobedience.

The Iraq War was a different case altogether and I can see how people would think the US was aggressive—especially since the auspices under which the war was launched have subsequently turned out to be false or flawed and in some countries like the United Kingdom and The Netherlands are still being investigated. Saddam Hussein was an awful dictator and I am very glad he is gone, but I don’t believe that it was our business to go in there and remove him, which is the other reason often used as a justification for the war.

Do you agree to give whoever is accused from your soldiers and your leadership as war criminals to the Afghan authorities to investigate and prosecute there?

Along the lines of what America is doing with those it accuses of terrorism, and as you do with defendants accused of terrorism in Indonesia?

If you do not agree about that, don’t you think that this action is racist and discrimination on the basis of race and religion, contrary to your liberal and democratic ideals?

No, I do not support agreeing to this. There are international courts and tribunals to deal with war crimes. These are the procedures in place. And if you are talking about a future Taliban government, I would like to ask you how could you expect this to be done when the Taliban wouldn’t hand over bin Laden, who caused this whole war,  and has issued no statement to the effect that they would do so if they were to return to power?  I’d also like to point out  Australia does not  do this. Australia respects the legal processes in Indonesia. The perpetrators of terrorism in Indonesia have been charged and prosecuted within the Indonesian judicial system. Australia has not sought the extradition of terrorists responsible for killing its citizens. We have full confidence in Indonesia’s judicial system. Indeed, their record of successful prosecutions is better than most countries.

There are international tribunals in place for these types of investigations so I do not think it is an issue of being racist or discriminatory or being against liberal and democratic values because it ensures people get a fair trial. I would also note that the Taliban didn’t agree to hand bin Laden over either. Actually it harboured a number of people who were wanted in other countries. So I don’t think that it could reasonably expect anyone to hand their citizens over.

Before you sent your troops were you aware of the results of the US investigation into 9/11?

I do not know the answer to this. That was a decision for the government at the time to make. But it is my understanding that the US government did provide briefings to other countries before the war was launched, at least according to declassified documents, which I have located while researching my thesis.

And why did the US administration keep the results of those investigations secret even to the deputies of the American people in congress and the media and American intellectuals?

The US administration did not keep it secret that  it was al Qaeda who carried out the attacks on 9/11. A good deal of information was made public at the time. Beyond this, I can’t answer your question, because I’m not American.

No one can ever say that all of this was to preserve national security secrets– this is a poor and unacceptable excuse–because the results of this concealment was to spark unjust wars under the banner of the cross (according to what Bush says) against Afghanistan and after that Iraq.

Do you accept sending your forces into a world war, and if against (terrorism), according to US allegations, just on the basis of its conclusions that it did not have evidence for and did not provide the results of an official investigation to prove these claims?

I do think that there was enough evidence to support action against al Qaeda, which because the Taliban refused to stop harbouring bin Laden, also meant action against it.  And so yes I guess you could say I do accept it.

The Afghan people at that time were  suffering severely from the effects of the unjust and very harsh war launched by the Soviets. And you and the other western countries ignored the sacrifices of these people who you benefitted from. Despite that, you did not help them in pursuing their rights for war reparations which are included in international laws you–as western countries–authored.

Can you not see that your country entered an unjust and aggressive war against a small poor and wronged people. And you exercised, and are still exercising an awful colonial role in the world and in the Asian region you live in?

Can you not see that the events of “Bali” were the result of a feeling of bitterness and despair on the part of perpetrators. That was against the feeling of pride and arrogance of the people who carried out the investigation into it and the follow up from your party and the Americans??

Can you not see that your fight in Afghanistan, which lacks justification and in which you have no interests makes you a part of the civilisational and cultural aggression against the Muslims who make up the human density all around you?? And your position that I am talking now about had bad security results as what happened in Bali, and that was a reaction that can happen again in a worse and unknown way?.

I think  I have already explained my view on the war and that it is not against the Afghan people.

I respect that many people feel like America and the West is still exercising colonial rule. I don’t quite know what we can do about that though. If we do not help we are criticised, when we try to help we are criticised.

But not everyone feels that way. For example Australia had very bad bushfires last February  and a lot of people died. Indonesia sent disaster victim identification experts to help us. We did not ask them to do this – they did it because our countries get along. We do not agree on everything.  But I doubt they see us as a colonial power. In fact I think that their gracious offer of assistance shows they see themselves as our partner.

Regarding the Bali terrorist attacks, Jemaah Islamiyyah suffered a big backlash for the Bali attacks– from within its own ranks and from the government crack down and of course public opinion against it.  I would also point out that when members of JI began to identify with the principles of global jihad and supported these over the local issues that drove the group’s founding, its support dropped and a splinter group led by Noordin Top and Azahari Husin emerged. The actions of this splinter group drove another backlash—against both the splinter group and elements of JI who continued to support it. JI and the Noordin Top splinter group became less popular the more that they employed their criminal terror tactics. Most attacks in Indonesia were carried out by the Noordin Top splinter group, which affiliated itself with al Qaeda, received some financing from it and claimed their attacks under its name. So I do not agree with your argument.

Can you not see that the politicians in your country, sell your coming generations future seats in the wars to come that will certainly be more severe than the current wars, whereas your enemies will be more in number and better informed and equipped??

When will you withdraw from Afghanistan? And when will you judge the leaders who drew you into this war, that is harmful to you and your children, now and in the future. ??

I think I have already covered this subject in my response to your other questions. But I would add that I think the war does need to end and the Taliban could make it end a lot faster if they wanted to. I would also like to ask you the same question: when will you judge the leaders who allowed this war to take place by either instigating the terrorist attacks against America, or harbouring those who carried it out?  We did not want this war, and the Taliban could have avoided it by not harbouring bin Laden and other internationally wanted people.

Regarding a withdrawal date: I do not know when the withdrawal date for Afghanistan will be. I imagine that it will not be until the country is stable enough and the population is secure so that it does not descend into civil war like it did in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal.  None of this want to see this fate befall the Afghan people again. They have been through too much already.

When will you reconcile with the Muslims around you who represent a quarter of humanity?

Who has the benefit of the senseless conflict?? It is definitely not in your interest and it is certainly not in the interest for the Muslims? In whose benefit is it, in your opinion?

I have already addressed the issue of reconciliation and peacemaking in several questions so I won’t repeat my response here.  As for my view of who this war benefits, I think it benefits al Qaeda, who as I have previously argued would see its position greatly weakened without it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the dialogue between us now despite its bitterness is a small step to cross that greatest obstacle.

However, a small step in the way of understanding and peace is better than a big step in the way of war and destruction.

How long is war the only choice between us?  Especially since your country is far away from us. Its role was always small and secondary in harming us and the enmity with us? Therefore, the way to fix this error is easier and faster than all the others.

Although Japan has preceded you in cutting its relations with the unjust war in Afghanistan and thus the restoration of the relationship with the Muslims.

And the question is:

Why don’t you start the first step to defusing the conflict with Muslims?

I refer you back to my earlier question about who you are referring to with “us” and my belief that there is no war against Muslims. There is however a fight to stop al Qaeda and its wanton use of violence against Muslims and non-Muslims and to bring the organisation to justice for its criminal actions. I too wonder how long war will be the only choice between us. I really do wish that it would stop–for all concerned.

This opens the door of understanding and tolerance with the Muslims to closest to  you first and with the rest of the Islamic world second.

You will find that Muslims besides being the bravest people in the wars are also the most tolerant of people and inclined to peace. That is the essence of their religion

Well Abu Walid, these are my responses. Thank you for taking the time to ask me questions. I’d just like to point out that I have tried hard to keep my responses in line with this being a dialogue. So they are written to reflect that instead of being  a long academic treatise. I have also tried to keep my language direct, wherever possible. It is not meant to be abrupt or aggressive, but I am mindful that many people who read my blog use translation software to read it. So I wanted to try to keep the language clear and direct so that at least some of it comes out clearly in these types of translations.

Like you, I think our dialogue is important. We may not agree, but hopefully we can keep talking and come to a greater level of understanding. As you say, it is a small step, but it is an important one, and any step towards greater understanding is a step away from conflict, which we all want to end. At the end of the day we are all humans. We all have families. We all want to live in peace and freedom and support our families to the best of our ability. I hope that these universal traits eventually lead us down the road to peace instead of conflict.

I have some extra questions I would like to ask you. They came to mind as I was trying to answer your questions. They are about your support for the Taliban and some questions about the Taliban more generally. I hope you will consider answering them as these are questions I have long wanted to ask. I know you do not speak for the Taliban, but I’d really like to know your opinion on the following:

I would like to know why you support a regime that denied the women of Afghanistan basic freedoms and liberty and the right to an education? I would like to know how the Taliban can justify denying women the right to an education and to learn to read, when the very first word revealed to the Prophet Mohammed in the Quran was “Read’?

I don’t understand how they can claim to be upholding the word of God but deny women a right mandated to them by God?

How can they excuse women dying because male doctors were not allowed to treat them and there was such a shortage of female doctors because women were not allowed to work or study? How can they excuse the tremendous impact this had on community well being?

I would also like to know how it is that Taliban allowed its members to torture and mistreat animals like they did at the Kabul zoo when it is written in the Hadiths that mistreating animals is a sin?

I am also curious as to why the Taliban–who argues it has the skills to lead Afghanistan–has not ever issued clear plans or guidelines or strategies for what it intends to do after it might come to power again. There is no educational plan, no plan for rebuilding. There is nothing.  And it has been nine years. If it wants to be taken seriously as a regime that has learned from its mistakes why has it not bothered to provide this type of information to its own people?

Well these are my questions. I’m looking forward to reading your answers and again would like to thank you for your earlier responses to my questions, and willingness to join me in this dialogue.

Leah