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

Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Did I hint at a conspiracy?
No.
Starbirth, try reading with your eyes open. I was intimating that the whole thing was S-T-U-P-I-D-I-T-Y.

>To me, the above attck on Pilger seems at best pathetic and at face value moronic (on this point at least). Especially when it comes from an article which aparently recognizes that fundamental muslims object to beauty pagents, yet expound the benefits or 'good' of these pagens based on the contributions to charity.<

Just one quick refrence to this affair. The catalyst for this whole riot came from a line in "The daily" newspaper who's publisher and editer are muslims.

""Pilger is of the old left which agitated for the liberation of East Timor. But that puts him in the uncomfortable position of having to admit Australia did the right thing. And then he would have to admit the terrorists targeted us for doing the right thing. And that destroys his entire argument.""

Some thoughts. First I agree with the statement about Australia. Pilger wound the Australia/East Timor thing into his theories about the world. The point was, Pilger claimed the West (basically America to him) wanted E.Timor under Indonesian rule (I've no idea why either, but he probably figured oil came into it). His argument was that Australia (to him little more than an American puppet-state) was keeping E.Timor under Indonesian rule. Unfortunately for this argument, Australia was one of the crucial elements in E.Timorese independence. From what I can gather, they disapproved of the Indonesian annexation but wanted to keep good ties with Indonesia. When the option of peaceful independence came, Australia jumped into the ring to help it along, probably to purge national guilt.

The Bali bomb is a case where both are apparently wrong. Pilger claimed that Australia was targeted because it's military "is an extention of the US military" (what a surprising conclusion). The writer of the article claims that Australians were targetted because they *supported* East Timorese independence. In fact, one of the bombers claimed that they believed the clubs regulars were Americans. I had assumed they were simply targetted as Westerners, since I couldn't think of any reason why Australians were targetted. In the end, it seems that there wasn't one.

"You contrast Pilger with these other news sources, which presumably have no agenda, or are pretty balanced. Is it the giant corporations owning the newspapers that keeps them agenda-free, or the directors of BBC being appointed by the government? That's what I usually look for when I want balanced information: the government , or multi-national corporations."

I did contrast, but I didn't say he was the only unbiased source in the world.

The idea that the BBC is controlled by the government is ludicrous. Look at the Thatcher years, when she was at loggerheads with the BBC on many occasions.

As for the multinationals. Yes, they own newspapers, but they don't vet everything they print. Even the notorious Rupert Murdoch seems to let The Times print stuff he doesn't agree with now and then.

Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Did I hint at a conspiracy?
No.
Starbirth, try reading with your eyes open. I was intimating that the whole thing was S-T-U-P-I-D-I-T-Y.

Just thought I'd repeat that for Starbirth. While we're on the subject, could you (Starbirth) point me to some stories concerning this $400 million? I may be horribly wrong but I couldn't find a lead. The only close match I got was this http://www.europaworld.org/issue48/afghanistan14901.htm which details the $400 million euros worth of AID paid to the Afghanis by the European Union. Any pointers would be helpful.

I also agree that Australia did the right thing.

"And then he would have to admit the terrorists targeted us for doing the right thing."

That statement does not make sense! It implies that terrorists should and would only target you if you the the *wrong* thing. Hence my comment on the argument being moronic.

So my question again: why did that article pick on Pilger?

Seems like I hit a nerve with zagreb

------

Starbirth - "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."

Have I missed something? Has terrorism been redefined again? Does it now mean attacking americans. Not so long ago I heard someone claim the attack on the uss cole was terrorism. military-target /= terrorism :doesn't add up.

Starbirth:
Another example of dam if you do dam if you don't. The US trying to do someting good and cut down on drug production? No it has to be a conspiracy. {Must be money for the Taliban to tear down statues or better yet to improve the heroin production} those dam Yankees!"

Neugens:
It's more like "trying to appear to do something good".


starbirth:
Your words show exactly what I was saying. If their is a problem in the world and the US stands by and does nothing then they are condemed for being in a position to do something and not. {adopting a isolationist policy and only acting when it is in their interest} If they do step in and try to prevent a problem they are condemed for interfering in other country's affairs or "trying to appear to do something good". About the only time you do not see this type of behaiver is when the old hand is out looking for american aid.

Frogbit:
Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Did I hint at a conspiracy?
No.
Starbirth, try reading with your eyes open. I was intimating that the whole thing was S-T-U-P-I-D-I-T-Y.

Starbirth:
Frogbit try disagreeing with someone with out hurling insults at them.

starbirth, who actually *wants* US government "involvment" anywhere?

The only people I've heard mention US government involvment as a good thing are americans or apologists, after the fact.

>Have I missed something? Has terrorism been redefined again? Does it now mean attacking americans. Not so long ago I heard someone claim the attack on the uss cole was terrorism. military-target /= terrorism :doesn't add up.<
Are you saying that any military base,vehicle or person is open game for attack by anyone who disarees with that countrys foriegn policy. So if the US did not like Frances treatment of americans vacationing in Paris they would be justfied in sinking one of their ships? Are you justifying "sucker punching" nations you do not get along with?
I have always understood that it is not a target unless you are at war with that nation or organization.Other wise it is jst plane murder {terrorism}

'Another example of dam if you do dam if you don't. The US trying to do someting good and cut down on drug production? No it has to be a conspiracy. {Must be money for the Taliban to tear down statues or better yet to improve the heroin production} those dam Yankees'

As far as I know the Taliban kept heroin production down, as it disagreed with their beliefs. Since the 'war', heroin production has boomed...

"Frogbit try disagreeing with someone with out hurling insults at them."

Normally this is the case Starbirth. It just so happens that your habit of avoiding questions you can't come up with a reasonable reply for is beginning to chafe. Frankly, suggesting reading a post with your eyes open isn't half as insulting as someone deliberately misconstruing a point because they haven't got an answer for it. It's and old and moronic tactic of those who can't defend their stance with logic or facts alone. You dismiss the person as stupid or a rabid consipacy theorist and you don't have to address their point at all. Your government plays that game all the time. Now in your country "left" or "liberal" have become dirty words, and it is no longer important whether they speak the truth or not. Given that this blind defence mechanism is so readily employed by your government it comes as little surprise that certain groups feel that they can't negotiate with you and are force to take more and more extreme measures.
I don't condone extreme measures of violence. I'm just trying to understand the motivation behind them. No doubt you will either ignore this post or select a sentence out of context and hold it up as an example of anti-Americanism.
Well, for the record, I'm not anti-American. I'm anti-ar*ehole.

"Frogbit:
Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Did I hint at a conspiracy?
No.
Starbirth, try reading with your eyes open. I was intimating that the whole thing was S-T-U-P-I-D-I-T-Y.

Starbirth:
Frogbit try disagreeing with someone with out hurling insults at them."


The insult was hurled at the politicians, not at you starbirth.


In my youth, I thought that politicians were incredibly smart, wise people, because that was clearly required to run a country and manage foreign policy. Since, I've concluded that these people are somewhere between spineless puppets and self-serving morons.

The whole issue stemmed from the alleged $400M given to the Taliban to eliminate heroin production. Not a particularly wise move, but one clearly modeled on the old and trusted US policy: to solve a problem, throw money at it. No need for any thought, as money is the answer to all the problems! Right?

"Are you saying that any military base,vehicle or person is open game for attack by anyone who disarees with that countrys foriegn policy. So if the US did not like Frances treatment of americans vacationing in Paris they would be justfied in sinking one of their ships? Are you justifying "sucker punching" nations you do not get along with?
I have always understood that it is not a target unless you are at war with that nation or organization.Other wise it is jst plane murder {terrorism}"


If you are not at war with a country, why have bases on their soil? Not really my argument, but a point of view of Saudis trying to figure out why the US has military bases in their country.

You're right starbirth: killing in this fashion is murder. But it's not terrorism. We've been over this discussion before and my recollection of the conclusion is of terrorism applying to lethal force against civilians.

"Are you justifying "sucker punching" nations you do not get along with?"

Coming from a US citizen, that's actually quite funny.

"Well, for the record, I'm not anti-American. I'm anti-ar*ehole."

How do you go to the toilet then?

"I also agree that Australia did the right thing.

"And then he would have to admit the terrorists targeted us for doing the right thing."

That statement does not make sense! It implies that terrorists should and would only target you if you the the *wrong* thing. Hence my comment on the argument being moronic.

So my question again: why did that article pick on Pilger?"

The point of the article's statement about the "right thing" was that the author believed that Australians were targetted for helping East Timorese Independence. Pilger supported E.Timor's independence but is loathe to say Australia did the right thing as (according to his worldview) Australia is controlled by the USA and this would therefore mean (in his view) that America supported East Timorese independence which he probably believes was contrary to whatever he thinks American policy in South-East asia is. The article was claiming that the club was bombed because Australia did what Pilger wanted them to do.

""Well, for the record, I'm not anti-American. I'm anti-ar*ehole."

How do you go to the toilet then?"

Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry

Some ar*seholes, you gotta live with.