h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"No afgan civilians did not have it coming. However the goverment {which were arabs not afgani} were providing safe harbor to terrorist who had and were planning attacks on civilians."

Well, yes and no. Afghanistan is a big place, largely desert and extremely mountainous. Could you tell me precisely what the Taliban "government" were supposed to do? Hunt them down one by one? The Taliban may have been in the majority but it was a small majority. They did not comprise what you may consider a proper governmental outfit. They didn't have the resources to track people down (even if they had wanted to). They were negotiating (although it appears not terribly seriously) to give Bin Laden to a Moslem country for trial because they feared he may have been dealt with harshly by the US authorities. These fears were confirmed when high explosives began to rain down in civilian areas.

Oh, and by the way, I've just finished watching a tv program reporting on the 'terrorist' supects being held in Guantanamo military prison facility. A spokesman for the US authorities stated that they would be released when the war was over. Be that in 10 years, or 100. Can you spot the irony? Yes, that's it - no war has been declared. So these guys don't get POW status, can be denied the rights accorded by the Geneva convention, and essentially interrogated until the US is satisfied.

Starbirth, I've a feeling you will, as usual, dodge any salient points in the above post and pick on a sentence to react to with natiolistic fervour, but grant me a boon, would you? Just answer me honestly; Is the US attempting to perpetuate this ultimately futile 'war' by *making* people feel hatred towards them?
Just asking. If you could briefly pull that flag from over your eyes I'd be most grateful.

"No afgan civilians did not have it coming. However the goverment {which were arabs not afgani} were providing safe harbor to terrorist who had and were planning attacks on civilians."

PS, You may gain more sympathy by actually learning how to spell the names of the countries you presently occupy.

Zagreb and others, I started a new thread for discussing double jeopardy if you want to continue it: F19585?thread=226601&skip=0&show=20

I will have to put this in two post it will not go as one.

Frogbit, First you call me a fool, next you taunt my spelling. Now you ask me to get serious with you. So instead of going your route and combing your post for mispellings {natiolistic?} or calling you names I will try and answer you.

> Is the US attempting to perpetuate this ultimately futile 'war' by *making* people feel hatred towards them? <

As I am not a member of the US goverment I can not speak for it or the country as a whole. I will try and give you a brief analogy of what I think is going on.

For the last few decades american forign policy has been a disaster. The US has made many mistakes but probally one of the biggest was when things got tuff The US pulled out. This led to a feeling that the US was a paper tiger all talk but no action. This lack of resolve was was interpeted as weakness to many of the US's enemys and even their allies. More so in the middle east culture. The US was seen as a weak bully. This attitude was instrumental in the 911 attack as it was expected that americans would tremble with fear at such a hit in their homeland. The act however did not illicet the response that the perpetraters nor other ememys of the US expected. It has enraged many americans and opened their eyes to what has been going on in US foriegn policy. While many people now realize the disastor which which we called foriegn policy they also want to send a message to our enemys that we are deadly serious in our resolve to defend ourselves and our interests. Americans have a tradition also of circling the wagons and rallying behind the president in times of danger that the rest of the world does not understand. We have been attacked by an enemy who we can not readably identify. We do however know we have other enemys who would do us harm if they could. So we will deal with the enemys we can identify one at a time and we will follow this trail and by our resolve will put all on notice that if you seek to harm us we will not stand by idle or turn and run. That it will be costly to attack us and we will no longer play a passive role in our defense.

You asked what I think is going on and this is only my opinion. I am not stating whether it is right or wrong. Whether it will work or not it is just how I see it.

I will have to put this in two post it will not go as one.

Frogbit, First you call me a fool, next you taunt my spelling. Now you ask me to get serious with you. So instead of going your route and combing your post for mispellings {natiolistic?} or calling you names I will try and answer you.

> Is the US attempting to perpetuate this ultimately futile 'war' by *making* people feel hatred towards them? <

As I am not a member of the US goverment I can not speak for it or the country as a whole. I will try and give you a brief analogy of what I think is going on.

For the last few decades american forign policy has been a disaster. The US has made many mistakes but probally one of the biggest was when things got tuff The US pulled out. This led to a feeling that the US was a paper tiger all talk but no action. This lack of resolve was was interpeted as weakness to many of the US's enemys and even their allies. More so in the middle east culture. The US was seen as a weak bully. This attitude was instrumental in the 911 attack as it was expected that americans would tremble with fear at such a hit in their homeland. The act however did not illicet the response that the perpetraters nor other ememys of the US expected. It has enraged many americans and opened their eyes to what has been going on in US foriegn policy. While many people now realize the disastor which which we called foriegn policy they also want to send a message to our enemys that we are deadly serious in our resolve to defend ourselves and our interests. Americans have a tradition also of circling the wagons and rallying behind the president in times of danger that the rest of the world does not understand. We have been attacked by an enemy who we can not readably identify. We do however know we have other enemys who would do us harm if they could. So we will deal with the enemys we can identify one at a time and we will follow this trail and by our resolve will put all on notice that if you seek to harm us we will not stand by idle or turn and run. That it will be costly to attack us and we will no longer play a passive role in our defense.

You asked what I think is going on and this is only my opinion. I am not stating whether it is right or wrong. Whether it will work or not it is just how I see it.

Did Iraqis meet the September 11 attackers in Prague?

"This report intrigued the world for months but now the Czech President Vaclav Havel has reportedly told the Americans he doubts if it true."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2284123.stm

"Quite simply, we think the source for this story may have invented the meeting that he reported. ..." a high-ranking source close to Czech intelligence told UPI Sunday. He also said that "the source has real credibility problems."
http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id2817/pg1/

[I know disinfo.com is not an authority that some people will trust, but this article is from UPI reprinted on disinfo.com]

"For the last few decades american forign policy has been a disaster."

The question many people would like to ask, Starbirth, is you perceive it as a disaster in what way? Do you think you were too weak in dealing with your enemies or (my view) do you think you did too much to make enemies.

America did not create terrorism or Osama bin Laden. You will always get extremists with a violent agenda. However, terrorism has large-scale support across the Muslim world and this is what America and her allies must address. Dealing with these people using force is a waste of time, as the Russians have discovered in Chechnya (using destructive power and disregarding civilian casualties in a way that possibly even the likes of Kissinger would think twice about). The Chechens are still not beaten.

To deal with the terrorist problem, the West has to start addressing the fears of the Muslim world and give them their self-confidence back. This means a lot of dialogue, some concessions and admitting that you can't "rule" the Middle East through force in Iraq or the more traditional US route of "support my friends".

Terrorism should be dealt with very firmly, but unless the reasons for it's *support* are dealt with, it's a waste of time.

Well starbirth I think you hit on it and may not have noticed

"and our interests". Two Bit used those same words in the "would you die for your country" thread.

An apologist is nodoubt thinking "but the brit empire, but this, but that and the other thing. The US military goes and stays where it's not wanted**.


**Yes I know full well that others do it. But that does not excuse it

" (using destructive power and disregarding civilian casualties in a way that possibly even the likes of Kissinger would think twice about). "

Interesting example Zagreb. Is this a weird coincidence or have you also heard that he's heading the line-up for the inquest into the Twin Towers attack?

One thing's for sure, we can expect no whitewash.

"Interesting example Zagreb. Is this a weird coincidence or have you also heard that he's heading the line-up for the inquest into the Twin Towers attack?"

Actually, I'm glad he's only involved in the investigation. Kissinger is a thoroughly immoral man and should be kept away from the reigns of power. Why he's been chosen for an investigation I don't know. From what I know of him, his understanding of the world is based on his reading of History and his attempts to "move" things in the way he wanted in South-East Asia as part of Nixon's clique was pretty disasterous. The cynic in me thinks that, in the American establishment, Kissinger is the closest thing to an expert on the Middle East.

"Don't vurry, herr President. I hav ze hunderstanding of ze Arab through reading about ze Crusades."

I liked Paxman's interview with Kissinger.

Paxman: "Mr. Kissinger, you've been awarded the Nobel peace prize."

Kissinger (nodding smugly) "Yes Jeremy."

Paxman "Have you ever been tempted to hand it back as a fraud?"

Kissinger: tears off microphone and walks off set.

Stroke of genius.

He was Bush's choice (which should make us immediately suspicious). One of the women from the group representing the victims of the attack said "He wasn't even on our prefered list. Couldn't we have someone untainted?"

Kissinger was heavily implicated in a plan to start knocking off unfriendly South American leaders. He does not in any way strike me as the kind of person who would contemplate doing something underhand to save the face of the government

Please guys, when are you going to wake up and see that your country is run by a bunch of crooked murdering ba*tards?

It's a bit unfair to blame the American people for whatever 'crooks' they have in charge, as the evidence is that most of them didn't vote for this administration anyway.

I fully support America's right to defend itself against its enemies and stand firm when attacked in such a manner as on 11th September. Remember that the vast majority of countries in the world also supported this defence (the war on the Taliban), and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, American had sovereign nations all over the globe begging to help.

But what does all this have to do with Iraq? When did Iraq attack America? What's wrong with Saddam Hussein giving money to Palestinian families if he supports their cause? Thousands of Americans donated money to the IRA for the same reason.

Brilliant, Apparition! I love it! (Bushandclippyjpeg that is)

"But what does all this have to do with Iraq? When did Iraq attack America? What's wrong with Saddam Hussein giving money to Palestinian families if he supports their cause? Thousands of Americans donated money to the IRA for the same reason."

If Saddam is supporting terrorism, then that is unacceptable. And yes, that goes for Americans funding the IRA too, as I've said many times before.

There's no proof Iraq was involved in the September attacks, but there's plenty proof that Saddam is a murdering tyrant who treats his own people like s**t and for that reason I hope someone gets rid of him soon.

Zag

Check out this site : http://www.911peace.org. They sent a blletin about reasons for war in Iraq. 'Stopping Saddam' has very little to do with it. I realise I am carrying on a bit about it, but *everyone* should read John Pilger's book, 'New Rulers of the World'!!!

Zagreb, what do *you* know of Saddam's armoury? Its composition is what UN Inspectors are there to determine!
What makes you think John Pilger is unreliable? What is *your* source of information?

>>In response to an earlier comment I made about the WTC I was asked what it had to do with Iraq. Iraqi intellegince officers met with a couple of the 9/11 highjackers prior to the attack. Also there are numerous reports of training camps that have been attended by Al Queda members, the most reliable of these reports comes from an Iraqi defector. So there is a link.<<

Okay, Zagreb is going to bite my head off again, for citing John Pilger, but he disposes of the story that Iraqi intelligence officers 'met with' a couple of the 911 hijackers, in his book.
For whatever reason, oil, containing China, Dubya and co want a war with Iraq. That's about the size of it!

3500 of them, Apparition, curiously close to the *final* number of WTC victims. Do you think they kept going til they got to the magic number?