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

If I remember correctly, the name "Palistinian" is a Roman mispronunciation of "Philistine".

Jewish history is very familiar to me.....according to them and my Christian sources it extends 6000 years hence.(its' a crock...but then, so is most scripture) So far, I've not read or heard much on Palistinian history. Maybe I could be enlightened.

Is there a site I can go to to learn?

No...can't place outside sites here...but my e-mail address is on my User Page.

NM

ME, I don't get your first sentence, which I read as if you wrote it with sarcasm.

EtherZev wrote that neither Jew nor Palestinian is genetically identifiable, and you immediately wrote that Jews were given a right to live in Israel, but people who have lived there for a thousand years are not allowed to live in the Occupied Territories. Well, yes, Israel is open to Jews. Israeli Policy is still to use the Occupied Territories for Settlements. Some Jews wouldn't agree to live there; others would because they don't recognise the Palestinian claim.

Jews are not genetically recognisable. It's a religion, not a gene. Palestinians are, to my knowledge, the sub-group of Arabs who would not sign an agreement to be Israeli citizens - that's a political belief, not a gene. Now differences between belief and religion have changed to hate in some cases, on both sides.

In the past, one side or another has given in to hate, without giving peace a chance. ME, it's not worth laying blame. Recently, it may have been the politician you call a murderer. Further into the past, it may have been the politician the Israelis call a murderer. Never forget that if the description is given, it fits both sides! The hope is that in the future, there may be a peace, and that this time it may be a lasting one.

x x Fenny (always and forever seeking Zero Intolerance, multilaterally)

Defining a Murderer, and doing something about a murderer are two different things. Bin Laden is a mass murderer, and he has wronged against the USA. The USA is now going to correct that wrong.

When a "politician" kills for a reason, or in a war, that is one thing. Murder of innocent citizens of other countries, is another.

Bin Laden might have been fighting a war, and depending on whose eyes you look out of, he could be labled a criminal or a man fighting for a just cause.

Then he committed murder. He is no longer fighting a religous war. The USA seperates church and state. He is fighting the STATE of that. The USA if not fighting Islam, but we are fighting a man(or scum) that masterminded the deaths of many innocent Americans. If Laden runs and hides behind the skirts of the Taliban, and the Taliban refuses to turn Laden Over for justice, they are aiding and abetting a criminal, which is a crime.

Which means the USA is no longer fighting just a terrorist, but the terrorist, and the criminal aiding and abetting him. The criminal helping him is a government that refuses to seperate church and state, forcing it's civilians to follow the teachings of the official religion. Like I said, the USA is not fighting the church of Islam, but the STATE of Afganistan.

I don't care for war. I don't think it is the best solution for goverment disputes, but I do advocate using force to capture a known murderer.(otherwise you could not capture him POLICE:"Mr. Laden, please give your self up, pretty please with sugar on top" BIN LADEN:*shoots police then kills thousands more innocents* "ha ha NEVER"....see?)

The USA has given the Taliban numerous chances to turn over Laden, or at least say that they don't have him and are willing to help get him.

By refusing to turn him over they have become criminals. Not just any criminals, but criminals not just allowing a murderer to escape, but a not just a murderer, a mass murderer of innocents, not just a mass murderer of innocents, but a mass murderer of innocents that has VOWED to murder AGAIN. He plans to kill more innocents, and the Taliban makes no move to stop him.

They are criminals. They need to be taken care of, to be punished for crimes against humanity.

These horrors are not related to who lives in one land and who doesn't. The country that was attacked here was not attacked because it is fighting for that tract of land. We have our own land. We where attacked because Bin Laden is an insane terrorist.

I don't think that bombing the Afgan people is the solution. I think if they were allowed to know the truth of why they are attacked, and given a chance to vote(HA) they would remove those in power from it. They have done no wrong. They allowed criminals to take charge of there land, and have not removed them, but the cards are stacked against them in that struggle. It is not the Afgan people we are fighting. It would be different is none of the bombs fell off target and could be guarenteed not to do so. The accuracy is not 100% YET.

We should instead attack the Taliban. Send in ground forces. Arrest them. Imprison them like the criminals they are. Kill them, not more innocents.

THEN the world could help them set up a free democracy and seperate the church and state. Maybe then, with the goverment not lead by relgious zealots, we could at least remove one country from the so called religous war.

BTW any one else think that it is funny that the relgions fighting not only worshippers of the same YAWEH/God/Allah but YAWEH/God/Allah said "thou shalt not kill"?



sorry about the length
phreak

Phreak,
Forgive me for saying the following. I don't automatically believe it, but I feel I ought to point out that others seem to believe it...

You refer to Bin Laden as a "Criminal", "comitting Murder". These are both terms based in the US legal system. Perhaps the State of Afghanistan define these things differently. That would explain why they do not instantly do everything that America asks of them, despite the amount of ordinance falling on their State...

Bush made a proclaimation a few weeks ago saying he wanted "the suspect, dead or alive". That's a very telling phrase - "Suspect" means someone whose guilt is not proven. Bush was happy to have someone whose guilt was not proven brought to him dead. That's the US justice system, as viewed by an ex-Texas governor.

Peet,

You come across as a person well versed in the Ideology and political realities of the world. A true cosmopoliton man. Please do enlighten us on how you would handle this situation if you were preident,prime minister,leader of your country and this had happened in your back yard?

Peet.
What country does killing thousands of innocent people, without warning, or being at war with them NOT constitute murder? Is murder in the Taliban's eye an act of violence between a golden-tufted marmoset and a pee-wee lawn gnome wearing a wig and a button saying "I 8 Islam" ? Really? COME ON!!!! EVERY ONE KNOWS it was murder.

In reference to previous posts.


The Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the land Philistia (Palestine) circa 146CE.

"Palestinian" referred to both Jews and Arabs living under the British Mandate. Use of the term "Palestinian" to mean Arabs only came much later.

My own familiarity with religious tracts is used only as historical and archaeological bookmarks. Both Jews and Palestinians have made claims under the indigenous definitions as laid down by the U.N. My own question, which the UN definitions do not answer satisfactorily is: - When does one become an indigene. One generation? Ten? A hundred? Where do the scales tip? Who decides? Who has the right to enforce arbitrary decisions?

A personal preference leans toward the universality of humanity. But these cats have been in the bag for so long that which fur belongs to which cat makes re-assemblly an impossibility. Take away the religious extremists and Peace might stand a chance.

"Bin Laden is a mass murderer, and he has wronged against the USA. The USA is now going to correct that wrong"

Matter of opinion there. Seems (to me, of course) that they (the US) are just committing another wrong. Bin Laden's wrong can only be corrected by himself or the Taliban.

> "What country does killing thousands of innocent people, without warning, or being at war with them NOT constitute murder?"

I can't recall that the Taliban have ever taken issue with that. But they have asked for proof. You are not a mass-murderer, in most civilised countries, until it is proved.

On a side note, what makes everyone so certain that the Taliban even have the power to hand over Bin Laden? I've seen estimates that Bin Laden has more (and better trained, equipped) soldiers than they do - how exactly are they going to get him to leave? Asking nicely?

The US are asking for the impossible. If this war really was the "last resort" they claim, they would at least talk...

"What country does killing thousands of innocent people, without warning, or being at war with them NOT constitute murder?" - by asking that question you reveal many assumptions about your position.

As Dubbleya will so easily attest, a premeditated killing is not murder if the state approves of it. Look at his frequent applications of the death penalty for proof of this position.

Bin Liner - sorry Laden - would probably say that (1) he was fighting in a war, and (2) that his state approved of the killings. I'm just trying to draw your attention to the fact that what we all agree is a horrendous atrocity may be viewed in a different light by those who were involved and those supporting them. From their point of view, it wasn't murder.

To start to solve a problem, you must first understand the nature of the problem...

1 ) We were at war with the terrorist Laden BEFORE SEPT 11th!!!! Really. I thought BOTH party were supposed to know when they were in a war. I also thought you fought a war by killing the soldier of your enemy... WOW.. I must have been mistaken.

2 ) So killing an innocent civilian with the consent of a state is ok? Really? So why do people call Hitler a criminal and a murderer? His state was backing him...

3 ) I didnot mean that the Taliban should be punished for not handing ove Laden, but I did claim thatthey did refuse to help find him, or even admitt he did some thing.

4 ) I don't believe the USA would claim Laden did it, and go to war over it if the officials did not believe that there was enought evidence to prove Laden guilty. I agree that Laden need to be tried and found guilty. If he was handed over, he would be tried. If he was innocent, he would be released, and in America you are innocent until proven guilty. I think that, in order to appease those of you out there not beliving this man is a murderer, he should be tried "in absentia" and then the issue should procede from their.

5 ) If the Taliban did condone his actions then they are just as guilty as he. It might not be "murder" in that case as you pointed out, but then it would, ironically, fall under the label "war crime" and they would STILL be guilty.

6 ) By the phrase "righting a wrong" I was refuring to the fact that America was going to step in, capture those believed guilty of crimes against this country and put them on trial, and punish those found guilty. In the process if we need to fight a "war" so be it. This is a case of a criminal hideing behind other criminal from justice.


Phreak

Lucinda, according to the UN, the Taliban have no right to ask for any proof as they are not the legitimate government of Afghanistan. It's not as if diplomatic efforts to secure the arrest of Bin Laden have only been going on since September 11th either: the UN has been demanding of the Taliban since 1998 that he be handed over for trail.

It's perfectly possible that the Taliban do not have the means to expel Bin Laden, but they've never expressed even a wish to do so, so the point seems moot. I'm not a big fan of wars generally, but if you can think of a means of securing Bin Laden's arrest - or even preventing him from being a continued threat - that doesn't require military action and hasn't already been tried several times in the past few years, I'd like to hear about it.

> "I don't believe the USA would claim Laden did it, and go to war over it if the officials did not believe that there was enought evidence to prove Laden guilty."

Bizzarely, the Taliban do not appear to share your faith in the US government... Hands up anyone who thinks that Bin Laden would actually survive to a trial once he was on USA soil. The anger on this is comparable to that over JFK, for example. Which is why I think that a request for a trial in a comparatively neutral third country is an eminently sensible one.

> "If the Taliban did condone his actions then they are just as guilty as he."

Not true. Those who have argued in this forum that (for example) dropping atomic bombs on Japan was justified, are not as guilty as those who ordered the decision to be made. Indeed, I would not say that they are guilty at all, merely misguided. (and I'm sure that many of them feel that I am misguided for having the opposite viewpoint).

Similarly, Sinn Fein regularly condones (or 'refuses to condemn') IRA atrocities, yet nobody has launched cruise missiles through the window of Gerry Adams' house. There is some superficial similarity between Sinn Fein/IRA and Taliban/Al-Qaeda, though I'm not sure how far to take it.

The biggest difference seems to be that the country funding and training IRA terrorists has more cruise missiles than we do...

> "According to the UN, the Taliban have no right to ask for any proof as they are not the legitimate government of Afghanistan."

Then why exactly do the US have a right to demand that they hand over Bin Laden? Regardless of whether they have a legal right, they certainly have a moral right. Some would say a moral duty, in fact.

I do realise that diplomatic efforts have been ongoing since 1998. Diplomatic efforts in Northern Ireland, on the other hand, have been going on for far longer, and are only just starting to bear fruit. Further, the Taliban's position has recently moved significantly. Refusing point-blank to negotiate at all is diplomacy only of the gun-boat type.

> "It's perfectly possible that the Taliban do not have the means to expel Bin Laden, but they've never expressed even a wish to do so, so the point seems moot."

If they expressed a wish to do so, then there'd be a nice bloodbath between them and the Al-Qaeda, and there's a good chance that many of the leaders would be killed. The threat of death from american bombers might seem remote - the threat of death from civil war and violent uprising is much closer.

Ideally, Bin Laden (and every other member of Al-Qaeda - the US asked for every last one) would walk up to the Taliban with handcuffs already on and say "It's a fair cop, gov" in a North London accent. But that seems unlikely...

> "if you can think of a means..."

This financial pressure looks good. I can't say I'm keen on the idea of instantly suspending bank accounts without any kind of trial or evidence, but the principle does seem to work. Meanwhile, continued efforts to resolve some of the outstanding conflicts in the region, principally Israel, will pay dividends long term. And better defence in terms of anti-terrorism measures will drastically reduce the likelihood of a repeat.

There is no silver bullet, of course. But dropping bombs is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile.

The Taliban doesn't trust the USA for one reason, the broke the first rule of propiganda: DON'T FALL FOR YOUR OWN LIES!!!!!

They are very Anti-Freedom over there, they don't want to lose power by allowing people freedom of religion, the freedom of choice. They strike out at anything that erodes their granite fist of control over their country. They support terror as a means for the government to control people. They spread lies sbout the USA because we are a) BIG b) Powerful c) Not ruled by terror d) free people e) not Islamic.



thou shalt not kill
christian and jewish commandment

phreak

The US have a right to demand the hand-over of Bin Laden because the UN says he should be handed over, and the UN is under no obligation to justify itself to the Taliban.

With whom should the US be engaged in a diplomatic effort anyway? If you genuinely believe that the Taliban does not have the means to oust Bin Laden, then the only recourse is to negotiate with Al-Qaeda. Unfortunately, reasoning with an organization which unflinchingly maintains the position that non-Muslims are fair game until there are none left on Arab soil does not strike me as a particularly fruitful course of action.

How can you say that death from American bombers might seem remote to the Taliban compared to a conflict with Al-Qaeda? The Taliban are already engaged in a civil war and being bombed by America: to suggest that the current reality seems more remote than a hypothetical battle with Bin Laden appears a curious logic. What is this significant move in the Taliban's position, and how would it make any difference if you say they're not in a position to expel Al-Qaeda anyway?

If Laden started a war with the Taliban because they attempted to turn him over, guess who would side with whom? It would end up Laden and Al-qeade vrs Taliban and AMERICA. Guess who will win?

Chances are that it would turn into the sort of dirty war where there were no winners, only losers.

re: rights - I was talking, as I believe I said, about moral rights, not legal ones.

> "What is this significant move in the Taliban's position"

That they are willing to consider handing Bin Laden over to a neutral third party if they are presented with strong evidence that he committed the sept 11 attack. An offer that was not made (afaik) during the preceding three years of negotiations with the UN. It's not a huge offer, but it's a start, and something that could be built on.

> "If you genuinely believe that the Taliban does not have the means to oust Bin Laden, then the only recourse is to negotiate with Al-Qaeda."

This is only true if your sole objective is to oust Bin Laden. If you have other objectives - to protect citizens in the west from further attacks, to promote stability in the region, to get better conditions for those in Afghanistan, to get the Al-Qaeda to 'decommision', ... then negotiation with the Taliban can achieve something.

> "Unfortunately, reasoning with an organization which unflinchingly maintains the position that ..."

You imply that this position will never change. Given that this was not their position prior to the Gulf War, this seems incorrect to me: it's changed at least as a result of Western action, perhaps it can change again.

--

re: remoteness

Those in power in Afghanistan have had years of experience of civil war. They know first-hand the horrors of such a conflict. The falling of american bombs, meanwhile, poses little threat. They have seen the forces of the west ranged against Saddam Hussein - and look: he's still just as securely in power as ever. And unlike Iraq, the terrain is such that troops on the ground are hugely unlikely, making a direct threat unlikely.

So: the missiles from a ship miles away, or the Kalashnikov of the vicious looking guy next to you - which is more remote? At least the missiles won't rape your wife and kids before killing them.