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

You know what trig, I don't really care that much about what Mandella did or didn't do. I completely support him and what the ANC did. If you have no vote and yet are subject to the will of a government maintained by a small elitist exclusive group, you will probably do all sorts of outrageous things to bring down that system. Because it's impossible to change anything by verbal rational argument. We did some pretty awful things in WW2, such as the carpet bombing of Dresden, in order to defeat the Nazis because they would never listen to negotiation and argument.

I'm thinking there may come a time when we can talk to Al Quada, much as we eventually talked to the IRA. But I think that moment should be when it is obvious a terroist group is on the verge of giving up violence and wants to REALISTICALLY talk to its enemy.

Otherwise we do not talk because all it leads to is every looney tune you can imagine expecting to get its way by bombs and terror.

Violence aimed at non-combatants, especially kids, is never justified.

I don't think I'll need to qualify that statement.

It's up to you to convince me.

TRiG.

"The French resistance had a government of sorts operating whilst the German occupation was in place does that make them any less or more terrorists than present day Iraqi insurgents?

The ANC were not able to protest in the way that a disenfranchised group might reasonably be able to do in most other countries. Neither were the people they represented able to live or work how they might have liked to. Non whites in South Africa of the apartheid era were very disenfranchised.

Christians who want a return to more stringent use of blasphemy laws and observance of the Lords day mey feel disenfranchised and to a certain extent they are. Would this give them the same "legitamacy" in taking up arms or even harrasing people over the telephone.

Probably not but this is why calling people terrorists serves no useful meaning. The only purpose is for the big guy to demonise the little guy.

Anyone with a serious inclination to grind teir axe against the state or a number of states wil do so regardless of the names they get called. Within society atlarge a hardening of attitudes against the terrorists and their cause will just meke it a longer time before we can all sit down and talk out any differences."

I've already explained what a good definition of terrorist is - someone who targets civilians for the purpose of using fear to further political aims.

You seem determined to smother condemnation of terrorism in relativism, arguing that everyone is a terrorist in someone elses eyes. I'm arguing that there is a distinct definition of terrorist, that it is distinct from what governments sometimes call terrorists (eg guerillas) and that it is never justified.

As for your "small guy" comment. Get a grip. Do you think the kids being held hostage as Beslan felt they were being held by "little guys". The entire philosophy of terrorism is based around victimising people.

The French resistance certainly targetted civilians brought in from Germany to maintain infrastructure and build military bases.

I suppose you could consider those German civilians part of the military machine and occupying force? Then could you say the same about westerners kidnapped in Iraq?

I think guerilla and terrorist are definitions covering separate aspects. Guerillas quite often resort to hideous tactics, including terrorism.

Here's a bit of a reality check for all of us:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/13/there_is_no_war_on_terror.php




I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are a lot bigger threats to my life and my lifestyle than Mr. bin Laden and his bunch.

Added that page to favourites. I'll reread it when I'm awake.

I think that article swallows the line that Al Quaeda is/was an organised entity with an order akin to an army. We now know that this isn't the case, (indeed, folk a lot smarter than me always knew this). Al Quaeda is a banner organisation and represents an idea, the idea of armed jihad. Any terrorist act carried out by Islamists is attributed to Al Quaeda, but only insomuch as it is carried out in the name of Al Quaeda.

The threat to the UK is actually an order of magnitude larger than that to the USA. Thanks to the government adopting a policy of offering safe haven to Islamists following the overthrow of the Shah in the mistaken belief that a) our security services could better monitor their actions and b) the Islamists would not attack within a country offering shelter, (this is actually enshrined in their warped code of "honour". Abu Hamza claimed this was revoked when the UK attacked Afghanistan).

As a result of this policy, radical Islamists took refuge in London when the French were actively pursuing them after the trouble in Algeria. We actually sheltered some of the worst monsters in Islamic terrorism, much to the infuriation of the French. Remember, this was all pre 9/11.

Whilst in the UK, the radicals set up the websites and money channels to support continued operations in France, Algeria and Morrocco. As a sideline, these "Heroes of Islam" were readily invited to preach in Mosques and talk to young hopeful recruits. They had the war stories and battle scars from Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kosovo to regale their rapt audiences, ably backed up with photographs from Palestine showing the plight of their Muslim "Brothers". Guest speakers were invited from Palestine, Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon to further elucidate audiences on Zionist plots & conspiracies. The Govt were quite keen on this because it allowed Britain to meddle in an area the French liked to call their "sphere of influence". Israel wasn't quite so pleased and, from the 70's there have been a steady trickle of indications that Mossad carried out intelligence operations in London.

Audiences were encouraged to join the Jihad. Not neccesarily in person - an uneducated 17 year old from Brick Lane is actually a burden to guerilla armies in Chechnya. They encouraged people to support the jihad financially. Charities were set up to channel the funds that flowed in. Other ways to support the Jihad were to agitate for political change, specifically foreign policy. This is the visible side of Al Quaeda that we see on our tv screens and read on the web every week. It is no accident that Muslim issues feature on news channels and other outlets so frequently. Like all organisations, the BBC and others report that which is easy to report. When video clips, photographs and typed-up copy arrive on their desks - all sensational and all newsworthy, the Editors actually have very little to do to make it suitable for publication/airing. We live in a 24/7 news environment where editors are desperate for stories to fill airtime. Backing this up is a ready bank of Muslim "experts", "commentators" and "spokespeople", available 24/7 to back up reports with talking head time. It's a media gift.

But, I digress. Can we negotiate with Al Quaeda?

We can't negotiate with Bin Laden. The wounds are too raw for that. Bin Laden, if not dead already, is a dead man walking. His successors, if they make the overtures - perhaps.

But why would the Government *want* to negotiate? For now, the British Public are sanguine about Afghanistan, pragmatic about Iraq and fixated upon the relatively harmless Muslim bogeyman. Whilst the public accept the posturings of the Islamists, the Government can continue on it's chosen path. If anyone thinks that the UK is getting nothing out of Iraq/Afghanistan and our alliance with the US, they are very much mistaken.

I say this for 2 reasons.

1) Tony Blair is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. He is not immune to the mountains of criticism thrown at him and the poodle gibes will have struck home. Bear in mind that this man is extremely media-savvy and owed a lot of his success for reading the shifting sands of public opinion astutely.

2) States do not have friends, they have interests. Never mind who the figurehead is, the ship of state sails serenely on, regardless of the political hue of the political representatives. Britain is profiting from the whole current geo-political situation - one which has been largely engineered by Britain remember.

Sorry, it's late and I've rambled on enough.

'The threat to the UK is actually an order of magnitude larger than that to the USA.'


I stand by my statement that there are far larger threats to my life and lifestyle than al Qaeda.



I live in Canada.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury is being a little more forthright than the Pope it would seem.

"Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, has launched a trenchant attack on Islamic culture, saying it was authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving.

In a speech that will upset sensitive relations between the faiths, he denounced moderate Muslims for failing unequivocally to condemn the "evil" of suicide bombers.

He attacked the "glaring absence" of democracy in Muslim countries, suggested that they had contributed little of major significance to world culture for centuries and criticised the Islamic faith."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/26/1079939832744.html

Good post SWL. Interesting you mention Britain's giving a safe haven to Islamists during the 1990s when they were fleeing French wrath following their bombing campaigns. I've found the attitude of the Anglo-Saxon right recently (that the French are a bunch of softies whilst Britain has always been a tough defender of freedom) infuriating given the obvious facts. It's nice to know someone else has a memory that goes back more than five years.

"I stand by my statement that there are far larger threats to my life and lifestyle than al Qaeda."

That's a rather foolish attitude. It's not whether a terrorist organisation is a personal threat to you so much as whether they can spread fear and terror and who they can kill.

If neo-nazis had killed as many people in the West as Islamists and someone said "you're more likely to get killed by a bus, let's not get carried away, it's no real threat" I'd regard that as spurious nonsense avoiding a serious problem.

"Here's a bit of a reality check for all of us: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/13/there_is_no_war_on_terror.php" Please. The whole article is full of baseless assertions to comfort one side of America's political divide. The idea that Al-Quaida is "broken up" is laughable and neglects how the organisation works. The notion that there are "no" Al-Quaida operatives or cells in the USA is preposterous - all it needs is a few angry, violent rightwing muslims to decide to carry out an attack in Al-Quaida's name. The claim that Iraq "cannot" fall to Al-Quaida is astonishingly naive. Iraq is a weak state - without foreign support it could collapse into civil war and that is where Islamists thrive (see Afghanistan and Somalia). As for the isolationist, selfish assertion that Iran and Syria don't support "anti-US" terrorism. Well, heck, let them arm Hizbollah. It's not *our* people in danger after all! (I'm old enough to remember when this sort of thinking a rightist position). If people want to challenge Bush on the war on terror, fine. His handling of it has largely been shoddy. But this sort of shrill denial is typical of US politics - if they say black you say white.

I can see where he's coming from on a few points. Bush is going to hype things up for the mid-terms, but not to do so would be political suicide for the Republicans. This is a long-term conflict, albeit low intensity, and if he downplayed it now it would be impossible for Republicans to talk it up or secure backing for continuing the war in the future. I tend to think Bush is going to go for a big hit before he goes. A successful surgical strike on Iran in the weeks before the next election will secure victory for the Republicans.

The attempt to split the Taleban from Al Quaeda is disengenuous. In 2000, under extreme pressure from the US, the Taleban ordered the various terrorist training camps closed down and the various cliques were instructed to leave Afghanistan, bar one. Guess who? Yep, Al Quaeda. His camps continued with Taleban blessing. Bin Laden then made the shrewd move of offering his "safe" training camps to the groups ordered out, (Algerian, Morroccan, Indonesian, etc). These groups only loosely agreed with Al Quaeda's aims, but they desperately needed safe camps due to effective suppression in their own countries. They accepted Bin Laden's offer with alacrity. The Quid Pro Quo was that their communications and support networks were now made accessible to Al Quaeda.

If the Taleban had a problem with Al Quaeda, it was purely one of jealousy towards the aura that Bin Laden held in the Muslim world. Arabs historically were viewed as cultured and educated whereas Afghans were (and are) sneered at as peasants.

re: my 'foolish attitude'

run up the white flag, Zagreb, the terrorists have won.





You know nothing of my situation nor of the situation of my country. My carefully considered assesment of the real threats posed to my country and its citizens is that al Qaeda is inconsequential compared to other much more powerful and much nearer threats. This is not to say that al Qaeda is not a threat that needs to be dealt with. What I do feel is that, based on my country's capacities and upon the real and present threats to my country, our resources would be far better spent on trying to attenuate other threats. I also think that this goes for most nations in the world.

Go ahead and see me as a selfish fool; I certainly won't bother reciprocating the 'selfish'.

"re: my 'foolish attitude'

run up the white flag, Zagreb, the terrorists have won."

Yes, that's right. By acknowledging that terrorists exist and pose a real political and actual threat I am letting them win! This is why the IRA immediately won after the British government acknowledged them as a threat and Ireland is now united under Dublin.

You're simply using cut & pasted arguments. Islamist terrorism *is* a threat as events in New York, Madrid and London have proved in the West and dozens of examples have proved in the Islamic world. More people have been killed by Islamists in the West alone than have been killed by the terrorism in Ireland in the 20th century but I think anyone who claimed that was a problem to be ignored as irrelevant would have been shown a dismissive attitude at best. Ignoring it doesn't work, that's exactly what the USA was doing prior to 9/11 (as I've said before, take a look at Bush's foreign policy pre 9/11). All it requires is for people determined to fight a holy war to do so.

Of course, I suspect that your attitude is coloured by politics. Terrorists = at war with Bush and so acknowledging them as a threat is to side with the dreaded George W. Better to sit on the fence and let someone explain why this is "okay". The whole "left-right" political tribalism on serious issues is infuriating. Global Warming, another serious problem, seems to be heading in the same direction.

I'm not sure it's a s simple as a 'left-right' divide. In any of these things.

One of the more interesting features of the US mid-terms is that Bush has broken one of the biggest rules of American politics - 'Republican shall never attack Republican'. By very publicly coming out and attacking his own people over the matter of the war on terror and his methods of fighting it, he has boosted his own ratings by 5% in a little less than a week, and I'd guess done very little damage to his senators chances of re-election. He has however shown a fatal weakness in democrat policy which is almost entirely based on Bush's own personal un-popularity.

The age of the 'left-right' debate is almost dead in western politics. In terms of socio-economic policy, their isn't a fish-slice between Labour/Conservative or Democrat/Republican and I get the feeling that a similar suituation is emerging throughout the western world.

I tend to agree with that assessment, with the caveat that we may see a rise in the far right giving us a choice between centre right and far right.

Rather like the US in fact

I'm not sure it is quite as simple as that. The Tory party has done a much better job of distancing itself from 'The Far Right' than the Labour Party did with the 'Far Left' in the good old days of Militant etc.

Despite various high-profile events in recent years, I still don't get any real sense that the BNP are seen as a viable alternative in real terms, so it appears likely that what we are left with is two fairly centrist parties.

Zagreb, I would suggest, as I think anhaga is, that governments evaluate *all* threats to people within their country through the means of risk * potential damage and the cost required to make a certain amount of progress against that.

How is using personal risk a selfish response? Personal risk * population of world = danger to general human well being.

If those numbers show that more people's lives can be saved and/or improved through, say, general investment in the emergeancy services - and here's a hint: they do - then with what justification would you give for focusing on terrorism, or neo-nazis for that matter, to the current extent whereby laws are being changed and elabourate terrorism emergeancy response systems have been put in place?

Why not instruct the police to deal with it as they see fit and get on with things? Why has this even become a political matter?

Why is terrorism special?

"If those numbers show that more people's lives can be saved and/or improved through, say, general investment in the emergeancy services - and here's a hint: they do - then with what justification would you give for focusing on terrorism, or neo-nazis for that matter, to the current extent whereby laws are being changed and elabourate terrorism emergeancy response systems have been put in place?

Why not instruct the police to deal with it as they see fit and get on with things? Why has this even become a political matter?

Why is terrorism special?"

Because terrorism is political. It's not done merely to cause death and destruction but with the intent of creating political change through fear. There is much more at stake than human lives when a terrorist campaign starts. The notion that "if only you'd do X we'd leave everyone alone" is a powerful one to many people who'd rather get on with their lives. Governments are more than aware of how much risk terrorism can put them at and democratic governments are particularly at risk since widespread fear and panic can force them out of office or to change policy. There is much much more at stake than the number of people killed which is why the "more people killed by cars" argument is so fatuous. More children were doubtless killed by cars in Russia than were murdered at Beslan but I don't doubt which one had more ability to terrify Russians and potentially affect their government.