Part 1

Planes Drop Bombs, Planes Are Bombs

When comparisons are made between the acts of the American President Clinton, in mistakenly bombing a Sudanese chemical plant, and the acts of Osama Bin Laden and his organization, which planned the events of early September, labeling both as "mass murderers", simple logic rebels.

The widespread repetition of this argument, that one man's act is similar in nature, justifying the acts of the other, both parties equally great criminals, enemies at large against humanity and civilization, requires immediate attention, because this argument is patently false, not able to withstand close analysis.

The two events are related, because the first was an attempt by an American leader to forestall further attacks threatened by a private (and secret) organisation, funded and led by Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden had issued a personal "declaration of war" against the West, particularly the United States, making threats against its military, government and commercial establishments wherever found in the world, but especially in the countries where Islam is the sole or major religion.

By this declaration, he announced himself a revolutionary, a terrorist, or a fanatic, depending on the perspective one chooses. He called the US his enemy, thus making himself an enemy. By this means he drew attention to himself, made himself a target, inviting their suspicion and force. To his supporters he became courageous leader, a saviour. His targets, however, consider him a fanatic, his acts criminal.

An earlier attack on the World Trade Center, two embassy bombings, and an attempt to sink a military warship are all acts attributed to the Osama Bin Laden organisation, and for these crimes the organisation seems willing to accept modest credit, promising duplicate doses of yet more disastrous damage.

It was after this provocation that the American President gave approval for the bombing of the Sudan chemical plant, thought to be making anthrax, smallpox, or other bio-chemical instruments, to be made into weapons capable of mass murder. His decision was based on information he deemed reliable. He was wrong. The plant made pharmaceuticals, important vaccines needed by the Sudanese people.

For this error he, as Commander-in-Chief, must take responsibility. The fact that Osama Bin Laden was resident within the national boundaries of Sudan at the time of the bombing, a fugitive from justice, was certainly a factor in the decision. For his part as provoker, Osama Bin Laden must accept some responsibility.

As leader of a superpower, in striking against a perceived threat, Clinton performed his sworn duty of national self-defense. If there is a mistake in the facts, the mistake must be sincere and unavoidable. Only then, can he be excused.

When this is the case, his is not the same motivation; nor can he be described as having the same "mass murderer" mentality as a zealous revolutionary who commits premeditated murder in striking innocent targets, creating dramatic effects to generate widespread terror, all in furtherance of a revolutionary objective.

The difference is that one acts to preserve order, the other acts to create disorder. One preserves a world of peace and security, the other acts to create chaos in the world, hoping to take advantage of the resulting instability.

One justifies his acts to conserve a social system considered valuable, the other acts to destroy that system, considering it unjust, and thus of little value. His justification is that a new and more just world is to arise from the ruin.

The problem is obvious. He is not a builder; his expertise is limited to rubble and ruin. Reconstruction is left to persons unknown. He asks assistance from good men to take more lives, to protect him, to provide more time to damage and destroy.

Those who respond to this appeal must first approve of his actions and his methods, then be willing to accept and share blame for the casualties of Osama's War.