8/10…..Almost…. BUT…

Another averted disaster?…’mass murder’ prevented?… or maybe not…. The unfolding of today’s events in more ways than one makes me sit back and ponder. To start with I don’t want to be categorized as conspiracy theorist and I seriously do hope that as reported today the threats posed were real and the aversion of the same has genuinely saved thousands of lives and that being the case I am as glad as anyone else that innocent blood wasn’t spilled.

But I can’t help but think of this in a broader perspective and maybe the same is the wrong way of going about it, but I am forced not to look at this in isolation. My issue finds its seeds in the statements made by G.W. Bush this evening… categorically stating ‘ARRESTS SHOW WE ARE AT WAR’. http://www.cnn.com/

But is America really at war even if these threats were real and imminent... and really where is the proof or the credibility of the arrests and the high handed claims made by MI 5, if what the security services claim is true, then this is one of the most innovative plots I’ve heard about in years, nitrogen based liquid explosive in individual bottles of "water"

Yes I agree it is quite possible, it’s a technique the Palestinians used to get passed Israeli checkpoints without setting off bomb sensors but just because something is possible doesn't mean it occurred.

… I am sure a lot will argue that well it is possible to foil a plan like this and I am sure this argument does hold ground, but just construing this situation liberally and going by the past events especially 9/11 , 7/7, the Madrid bombings and the follow up statements of Bush I do have my doubts about the credibility of the claims made of foiling a terrorist attack..

As mentioned earlier under the UN Charter the Security Council (SC) is the only body that can authorize the use of force which entails that the unilateral use of force under international law( America's toilet paper) is banned, the only exception to the same is envisaged under Article 51 which authorizes Member States to use force unilaterally without SC authorization under the pretext of self defense.

Taking the existing conflict in Lebanon into pretext where it has been alleged that the sole supplier of arms to Hezbollah is Iran, who are branded as a terrorist organization, all the US is looking for is a reason to enter the Persian Gulf and eventually threaten, pressurize or attack Iran under the pretext of pre emptive self defense ( just to foil there nuclear program which as all know has been a major thorn in the American’s back side) which though is still not an established norm but a developing one and lacks opinio juris but still has the characteristics of a developing opinio iuris.

For those not aware of the collective security system here is a brief analysis of the same.

The sole authorization for the use of force as mentioned earlier lies with the SC, and for any resolution in regards( authorization of force) to the same an affirmative vote from the all the permanent members of the SC ( the P5) is a per requisite . A negative vote from any of the P5 members is categorized as a veto and thus results in no resolution being passed or simply the lack of a decision on the part of the SC.( The cold war era was plagued by these vetos).

Keeping these facts in mind it must be made clear that the SC with China as a P5 member will never be able to authorize the use of force against Iran, coz countries like China and even Russia are sure to veto the same and hence there will be a serious lack of legality in case the US does decide to use force against a country like Iran, especially if force is used without the required SC authorization. It must at this juncture be pointed out that the US had used two grounds to attack Iraq recently and one of those were, pre emptive self defense, the presence of alleged WMD’s was considered as an imminent and potential threat and thus the use of force in that pretext against Iraq could be justified.

Keeping the same analogy ( pre emptive self defense) in mind, today’s actions and statements made by Bush can justify ( at least to a certain extent) the use of force against Iran or any country harboring alleged terrorists without SC resolution.

Furthestill all arrests made today have been of Pakistani nationals and trust me this is not coming from the fact that I am an Indian, but from the basic fact that if over and over again, it has been shown and proven that Pakistan has and will not only continue to harbor terrorists but will also be a safe haven for them, under those circumstances why does not the US then declare them a terrorist state and take action against them. The answer to the same is that it does not serve the American purpose as Pakistan is a stronghold point strategically especially keeping in mind the geographical proximity to Afghanistan and China. Thus it can to a certain extent be logically concluded that this is not really a war against terrorism but a war against those who go against the American interests.

Now I am sure this bog is being monitored and most are mocking the absurdity of my claims( which aren’t really claims), and I really do hope these quasi claims are/ were absurd and the terrorist threats were real and imminent and thousands of lives were saved... coz if there is any credibility to what I have to muse over then maybe just maybe today's decpetion was a tip of the iceberg that’s gonna freeze the world over …………..