Stop military strikes and ship in aid, doctors say
BMJ 2001; 323 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7317.823/a (Published 13 October 2001) Cite this as: BMJ 2001;323:823
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I fully support all those who call on the US and its allies
to stop bombing Afghanistan. The terrorist attacks on New
York and Washington were dasdardly acts, perpetrated by
frustrated and deeply resentful persons. They should forever
be condenmed by all, and support should be given to measures
that aim to stop similar attacks anywhere in the world.
Bombing Afghanistan or, for that matter, other countries
suspected of harbouring or supporting terrorists, cannot
stop international terrorism. Indeed, it is pointless for
the strongest superpower in history to rain tons of
explosives on the poorest country in the world. The US and
its allies surely know more civilised and humane means of
tracking down terrorists, and bringing them to justice.
Afterall, they are the 'civilised' world!
As for those who claim that injustice in the Middle East is
the root cause of terrorism, they should note that injustice
has been endemic in Africa for centuries, but Africans have
never exported terrorism to the West. Tony Blair was right
when he stated that Africa is a scar on the conscience of
the West, which must be healed by urgent and massive
development, before the scar becomes deeper and angrier. I
hope Mr. Blair will convince his fellow Westerners of the
need for them to repay Africa's massive 'debt'.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I wonder if MEDACT would have responded to the bombing of London and
Coventry in WWII by sending humanitarian aid to the Nazis.
Competing interests: No competing interests
All what people do is naive
I agree that direct call to stop bombing and to provide help
is naive. Nobody does just bombimg OR drops food.
People/states think that they plan reasonable and balanced actions. Later
it appears that some bombs did not hit targets, and that some food was
stolen by international bureaucrats or local (recipient) government. E.g.
in Russia, where I live, most of so-called 'help' from affluent countries
which was accepted by government, was sold to commercial enterprises.
Price was never object of discussion and nobody knows how later monies
were used.
Does it mean that it is resonable to stop do anything? Or just not
bombing? Or not to provide help? The only way is to entertain balanced
actions.
But what is balanced? When just couple of NATO shots hit civilian objects
in Yugoslavia, Russian propaganda announced that USA apply force non-
selectively, harming civil citizens. Since 1999 Russian forces continue
non-selective destruction of Chechnia. Our president was satisfied (!)
saying after Sept 11, that now US knows how important to support Russian
activity against international terrorists.
True balance probably does not exist and such calls as this one in BMJ are
just extremists' views, which input a lot in the process balancing.
People use to say that it is progress...
Competing interests: No competing interests