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

>>However the goverment {which were arabs not afgani)<<
*Where* do you get that idea, birth? The Taliban (armed and supplied by the USA from as far back as 1979, but in government only later) were Afghani, or Pakistani. Nothing else!

Re: Kissinger. I didn't want to digress from the point of this thread, so I was going to start a new thread on askh2g2: "What kind of industrial or household cleaner did you use to clean up the vomit after hearing that Kissinger was appointed to head the 9/11 probe?"

Crazy liberals aren't the only people that believe he's a war criminal -- there was a story out a year or two back, around the time that Pinochet was in the news more, that the French gov't wanted to question Kissinger about a few things. If I recall correctly, he denied them, and may have skipped going to France at all. Not sure if he's been back there since. That would be an interesting turn of events, if France held Kissinger on behalf of a country full of his victims, in the same way that Pinochet was detained. Kissinger wouldn't be able to wiggle out of it by claiming he's too old or infirm for prison.

Hi Gubernatrix,

I'm glad you see through the hype about Iraq, but I don't feel that America was "defending itself" or "standing firm" when it lashed out at the Taliban. I don't think there was more than a tenuous connection between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. They were preparing to bargain on terms to turn over al-Qaeda, so I don't believe they were really protecting the terrorists. There have been money links between al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but there have also been money links between US and both of those groups at different points in the past. The US gave something like $400 million to the Taliban as recently as Summer 2001, some kind of drug war incentive to stop opium growers in Afghanistan.

If there had been a clear way for America to attack the real people responsible for 9/11, then I would have supported it. I think attacking the Taliban was misguided, because we needed a target and the real criminals were too difficult to catch.

The appointment of Kissinger is a disgrace;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,850241,00.html

I really am rendered speechless...and that doesn't happen often.

Hello again,

Just to answer a couple of points that have cropped up:

Zag,
>>>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.

***have you? didn't know that. Do you think then that the US government should freeze the bank accounts of any American who donates to the IRA or Real IRA or any of those groups?

>>>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.

***yes, but nobody is arguing that he isn't a murdering tyrant. Isn't the pertinent question not *whether* someone should get rid of him, but *who* and *how*?

Subcom,
>>but I don't feel that America was "defending itself" or "standing firm" when it lashed out at the Taliban.

***I didn't say that it was in this case, I just said that it had the right to.

I think actually that the issue is similar to the one with Iraq, i.e. the Taliban regime was horrible and repressive and many people were campaigning against it before 9/11. But it's difficult to agree on the *who* and the *how* of doing something about it.

"Do you think then that the US government should freeze the bank accounts of any American who donates to the IRA or Real IRA or any of those groups?"

Absolutely, if there was proof. Sadly, our government never makes any demands of the US and has let this happen for as long as I can remember.

"yes, but nobody is arguing that he isn't a murdering tyrant. Isn't the pertinent question not *whether* someone should get rid of him, but *who* and *how*?"

Let's be honest, the only people with both the ability and the will to topple Saddam is the US and if it must be them, so be it.

"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?"

I don't know anything about Saddam's armoury. I'm speculating based on what I've heard.

Pilger is unreliable because he has an agenda. I've read some of his stuff and all his "evidence" conveniently fits in with his own view of the world. If you take your information solely from him, then you don't have a clear picture. I'm not saying you should ignore him (the boy who cried Wolf was right about that wolf once) just that you should remember he *wants* situations to be a certain way.

Me? I take my information from all sorts of sources. Mostly newspapers and the TV news (and since I live in Britain, TV news is pretty balanced). To be honest, a lot of my knowledge comes from threads on h2g2 like this one, too

I think you'll have to look back to the fall of 'Persia' [1975] to get a better historical frame. Lots of mistakes were and have been made, but believe me, our 'seniors' are working those misunderstandings. Hang in there, things are being rectified.

Yours, from just another 'middle folk'.

"What makes you think John Pilger is unreliable? What is *your* source of information?"

I don't know anything about Saddam's armoury. I'm speculating based on what I've heard."

Wow question and answer so quickly. That's rare on h2g2. The short answer is that zagreb has no source.

----------------




Pilger is unreliable because he has an agenda. I've read some of his stuff and all his "evidence" conveniently fits in with his own view of the world. If you take your information solely from him, then you don't have a clear picture. I'm not saying you should ignore him (the boy who cried Wolf was right about that wolf once) just that you should remember he *wants* situations to be a certain way.

Translation: He don't agree with me. I'm angry becaue he's published and I'm not.

Researcher 210517 - people may teke you seriously if you make a personal space.

"Wow question and answer so quickly. That's rare on h2g2. The short answer is that zagreb has no source."

Apparition, grow up. No I don't have a source on Saddam's weaponry. Nobody does but him. What I *have* done is read a lot about what people *claim* he has. I've based my speculation on that. I know about as much as anyone on this thread.


"Translation: He don't agree with me. I'm angry becaue he's published and I'm not."

Eh? Are you playing the "you're just jealous" card? I'm not easily given to jealousy. I don't mind that he's published one iota (whatever those are). Incidentally- Translation: you weren't interested in discussing the issues I raised so you made a cheap attack and decided to leave it at that.

How about a thread "opinions of war with Saudi Arabia"? They are just as bad or worse than Iraq in terms of funding terrorism; and control far more oil than Iraq. I concede that the House of Saud hasn't sworn vengence on the US or Britain, or called for the death of Jews and the destruction of Israel (I think). But the HoS is busy propping up its own dodgy regime, and can't be far from being toppled by more dangerous extremists (who have). It has squandered the oil windfall and Arabic standards of education and living (for the masses) have slipped from being at the top 600 years ago to being some of the lowest today. Let's nip this hot-bed of destructionists in the bid. Let's hope the US keep its forces around in Iraq after bashing Hussein to keep the Saudis in check...or to occupy the oil fields.

"How about a thread "opinions of war with Saudi Arabia"? They are just as bad or worse than Iraq in terms of funding terrorism; and control far more oil than Iraq. I concede that the House of Saud hasn't sworn vengence on the US or Britain, or called for the death of Jews and the destruction of Israel (I think). But the HoS is busy propping up its own dodgy regime, and can't be far from being toppled by more dangerous extremists (who have). It has squandered the oil windfall and Arabic standards of education and living (for the masses) have slipped from being at the top 600 years ago to being some of the lowest today. Let's nip this hot-bed of destructionists in the bid. Let's hope the US keep its forces around in Iraq after bashing Hussein to keep the Saudis in check...or to occupy the oil fields."

Well, first off Saudi contains a lot of terrorists (Osama himself is Saudi) but I don't think the Saudi state is a supporter of terrorism. It is anti-Israel, though, as most Arab states are.

Yes, SA is an absolute monarchy but very much with the blessing of the US (their main Western ally) as the alternative would be Islamic fundamentalism. Saudi Arabia has been quite tough with the US recently and asserting it's own agenda but, at the end of the day, Saudi Arabia has the biggest oil reserves in the Middle East and the US is a good customer .

As for war with Saudi Arabia. They're not Iraq, they are well-armed with advanced Western equipment as a bullwark against Iraq (going back to when Iraq was powerful). I wouldn't want to go there

Zagreb, I see it both ways. The US has treated countrys in the middle east with a "Do as we say, not as we do " attitude for many years. It has been an arogant way of dealing with people and backing tyrants to secure our intrests. That being said I think many other countrys have been guilty of the same tactics. The US has done a lot of good overseas also and was no wear near as bad as they could have been as a major power. One has to just look at how the soviets treated countrys and people under their wing. We have also had a policy of not treating terrorism seriously. For instance just one example is the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon when over 200 of our marines were killed. We pulled out sending the message if you want us to leave just attack us covertly.
Many in the US in the past did not pay a lot of attention to foriegn affairs. However that has changed since 911 and hopefully it will lead to more dialog in the future. You are right communication is a big part of the answer however swift and definite action to terrorism is a must.

Subcom:
>I'm glad you see through the hype about Iraq, but I don't feel that America was "defending itself" or "standing firm" when it lashed out at the Taliban. I don't think there was more than a tenuous connection between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. They were preparing to bargain on terms to turn over al-Qaeda, so I don't believe they were really protecting the terrorists. There have been money links between al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but there have also been money links between US and both of those groups at different points in the past. The US gave something like $400 million to the Taliban as recently as Summer 2001, some kind of drug war incentive to stop opium growers in Afghanistan.<

Thought you would like to see what Amersty International had to say about your unfairly attacked Taliban who were ready to deal in good faith look at next post.

Article:
*One of the Taliban's first acts in Kabul was to hang the former Afghan president, displaying his bloodied and battered corpse in public, a cigarette stuck in his mouth in mockery.

Bearded, Kalishnakov-toting fighters were seen this week thrashing two women in Kabul with a steel antenna ripped from a nearby car. It's unclear what they did wrong; the women were fully covered, in accordance with Taliban rules.

The rebels have hauled men off the streets, forcing them into mosques to pray on the Muslim Sabbath.

Amnesty International warned Thursday that the Taliban are "implementing a reign of terror," adding that they have seized about 1,000 people in house-to-house searches.

"Families are afraid to go out into the streets, afraid to answer their doors and afraid that their loved ones will suffer the brutal consequences of being found un-Islamic by the militia," said an official with Amnesty. *

Della:
>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?<

You finnaly found out our national secret. The big score board set up in Washington.

>Where* do you get that idea, birth? The Taliban (armed and supplied by the USA from as far back as 1979, but in government only later) were Afghani, or Pakistani. Nothing else! <

My mistake should have read Pakistani. However The US never supported the Taliban they supported the Mujaheedin against Russia.
The Taliban were started by extreemist Muslim students who were backed and incited by pakastani's {most likely their secret service} The taliban actually fought with the Mujaheedin and took Kabul in 1996. If you read on these people you will find a very vile organization who terrorized the public and treated women as slaves.

>>war with Saudi Arabia. They're not Iraq, they are well-armed with advanced Western equipment as a bullwark against Iraq (going back to when Iraq was powerful). I wouldn't want to go there <<

Are you admitting here, Zagreb, that you *know* that Iraq is *not* well-armed? Where then, are those 'weapons of mass destruction' that Dubya keeps banging on about?

"The US never supported the Taliban they supported the Mujaheedin against Russia."

birth, the US were actually arming and supplying the Mujahadeen BEFORE the Soviet invasion. The ain was a coup conducted BY the Mujahadeen AGAINST the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government.