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

Diplomacy and international intelligence would be so simple if nations were consistent in their friendships and enmities. Consider the upside-down reversals in the relationships of the US (the pillar of universal rights) with virtually every country it has dealt with or to.

Afghanistan is the latest example. The US funded and supported the Taliban only a few years ago against the nasty Russians. Likewise Iran, Iraq etc.

This is the short forecast for the Middle East. In one year, a Palestinian state, sponsored jointly by Arab/American states. In five years, the main entry into the Palestinian state will be named Bin Laden Airport, after the man who made it necessary.

How much longer can this discussion last? I've seen the same crap hashed out 'till its' almost a repulsive site to even read the backlog.

One side says "we need to talk"...another side says "talking time has been tried and is over".

Yet another says its' all because US foriegn policy sux...well, yeah, sometimes.....but then another chimes in that its' no more "self-serving" than any other countrys'(which I tend to agree with)

Have any of you heard the old song from my "Hippie Era" that goes "Will it go 'round in circles"?....welp'...thats' what we'uns is doin'!

Face it. It don't matter what you think should be done, nor how we got here, nor what will come of it. The simple fact is, the US was attacked..brutally. We are responding. Brutally. Only one thing will stop us. The Taliban are well versed in what that would be, and there is no negotiation. Wheather anyone here likes it or not.

All this bit chompin' and butt chewin' will accomplish is to wear out our fingers and our keyboards. How 'bout we just all quitely walk away before this thread gets longer than the infamous "42".....and, may I add, about as usless, as well!

And LOONy..if you'd like I'll put in a good word to "Dubya" and see if I can't get him to back off that NZ sheep thingy. Maybe then you won't need that anti US venom quite so much!

NM

Dear Fenchurch,
you say: "
ME, I have said things I hated myself for saying, in this forum, about Israel's Government. I won't come off the fence, but I hoped to see you take a step further into the middle"
I condsider myself to be in the middle, but i guess we all do I recognize Isreal's right to exist. But I also recognize the Palestinines right to exsit as well in the 1967 occupied lands and in forming their state.

however, I have two questions for you:
1- What do you think of the Settlements?
2- Do you, not the govmnt of Isreal, but you personally , agree on giving back East Juersulem including the Holy Mosque?

dear Fairly Strange,
"The simple fact is, the US was attacked..brutally. We are responding. Brutally"
that is what I was afraid of
sounds like Revenge

Peace&Justice for ALL

I don't see anything out of line with my previous posts

In my previous posts I set out to counter one or two US posters who stated flat-out that America had never participated in terrorism or the wanton killing of civilians by drawing their attention to the well documented history of the conflict in Vietnam, the use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets at the end of WW2 and the continued funding, supplying and training of Irish terrorist organisations. I said I had serious misgivings about the wisdom of using long-range missiles in a war where, as you point out yourself, the real targets are hidden away underground, exact whereabouts unknown, and where such attacks would , at best, hit the wrong people, and at worst prompt another round of terrorist responses. I pointed out that the fact I could see the flaws in this strategy didn't automatically presume that I could come up with a better strategy, merely that I recognised that there was a good chance that one existed. I also argued with people who chose to describe the conflict in US-centric terms rather than as the worldwide problem which it is. People who refuse to recognise it as a legitimate war situation because the attacker didn't take the trouble to follow the US "rules of engagement".

I have never said anything to downplay the terrorist's shameful acts, or be dismissive of the thousands of individual tragedies resulting thereof. I just have a low tolerance for those who describe such a huge situation in narrow, parochial terms, pushing the concept of patriotism over the edge into the territory normally reserved for arrogance.

Which part of my post was in any way "out of line" with this?

(oops, sorry, that was a reply to Starburst at the foot of the previous page - I forgot there was another page of replies to read yet. My bad. )

Mycroft - they made that offer prior to the start of the bombing. The only change since the bombing has to make the same offer from a higher level member of the Taliban. (third ranking, rather than diplomat).

Starbirth - I answered your question in my post 755. For the hard of seeing, I will repeat:

> "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."

It is customary to check to see if someone has answered your question before berating them for not answering...

Fenny - I was meaning the IRA. I know they are having a ceasefire, and they are negotiating on decomissioning and other issues. But the fact remains that they are (or perhaps were) terrorists. Perhaps I could draw a better parallel with the IRA and Sinn Fein of the 80's?

Fairly Strange - if you think this thread is useless, feel free to leave, but I think it is achieving something. We are continually approaching the same issues, but from subtly different angles each time. And world events continue to change, and people rightly wish to discuss them, and modify their positions where appropriate.

(Double oopsy on me - I of course meant Starbirth, not Starburst. Sorry - no offence was intended, I just wasn't awake enough at the time. A bath and some has perked me up no end, though. Hi, Lucinda! Your posts are, as always refreshingly sensible. )

Thank you Peet, it is likewise enjoyable to read your posts, despite your position being, perhaps, a little more moderate than my own...

I must confess to being pleasantly surprised by today's news. It seems that the USA is starting to use low-flying aeroplanes. This is a good thing, as it should further reduce civilian casualties. I was concerned that, as in Bosnia, the US would refuse to use low-flying planes because of the infinitessimally greater risk to the lives of their soldiers.

A good sign - may it be followed by many like it.

Hear, hear.

lucinder I was addressing Peet and only invited you to respond after reading your post preceeding mine.

I do thank you however for the etiquette lesson on posting as i have great respect for your opinion.


your humble student

starbirth

or

starburst

{in peets book}

Not to in anyway justify my feeling or posts on this thread i would like to insert some information about myself that may quantify my feelings and thoughts on this subject. {and my allow some of you to see the tradgedy on september 11, 2001 and succeeding events through anothers prospective}

Imagine:

You are a family man who while being aware of world events is more occupied with running your small buisness, keeping your head above water after a injury that saw you almost lose everything you had worked the last 20 years for. You have never been politcaly active in foriegn policy but are saddened by the constant violence around the world and in your country. But your main concern is your putting food on your table and shelter for your children. You then hear about this horrilble event as it happens you live less then an hour outside of new york city. You actually see the smoke rising from the city. Also Horror among horror you and your wife have family in New York City and the Pentagon. You are worried for your family but can not get through on the phone for over two days to find out about your family. On top of that your children are scared and you do not Know what to tell then. You also have friends and family in the military who are within a few days heading over seas. Several people from yours and surrounding towns have been killed. One Mother and 6 year old daughter { the same age as yours} were flying to disneyland and ended up in the WTC.
Then it seems biological warfare has come to your country and are worried that the next letter you open will infect your children with some horrible disease.

To try to escape from this horror for an hour or so at nite you go to a site online that you have been talking to people from around the world. These people are intelligent, funny and compasionate. When you go their most of these people remain the same kind souls but a few who you had talked to for months, read thier posts, and thought of as online friends now are spouting anti american retoric in posts. You find that they have a deep down resentment towards you just because of your nationality. Saying that america {which means you} got what she asked for. Bringing up every wrong thing real or imagined that the american goverment has done. In doing so making a mockery of the death of over 5,000 of your nieghbors. Then taking it one step farther telling you if america goes after the people who did this then thet are as bad as the terrorist. Put yourself in this situation for a moment and look at how you would react. Maybe just maybe you might take exception to so of the posts in this an a few other sites.

Starbirth,

You have my sympathies for your situation. I'm sorry if you find any of my postings offensive - I certainly don't intend them as anti-American rhetoric. I have a number of good friends in the USA and am chatting to a friend in California on the other IRC window as I post this. I have at points in this thread simply made (what I believed at the time to be) ironic comments to apparently ill-informed individuals, of whatever nationality.

I certainly have said nothing intended to make a mockery of 5000 deaths. If you have gained that perception as a result of my making my points badly or unclearly, I apologise. If some of the historical facts I mentioned seem insensitive at this time, I also apologise. If, however, they merely seem inconvenient facts in term of US foreign policy arguments then I don't apologise for them. A popular quote around these forums at the moment seems to be "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

Bin Ladens group has attempted to destroy the WTC once before. We let him get away. We learned the hard way. By your own advice we need to stop him.


phreak

Of course, your chances of dying from Anthrax attack pale into insignificance compared to the chance of dying from just about anything else. Such as a stress-induced heart attack...

phreak, I agree totally. All I've been saying is that this possibly isn't the best way.

Each side in this conflict is geared up to perform the sort of attack they would expect to be most effective against themselves - the impression, at least, is that the US can only conceive of war as being a group of well-paid, well-fed professionals throwing ordinance at each other from a long distance, while Bin Laden's faction can only conceive of war as an all-or-nothing personal moral crusade (with a small "c") involving the whole populace. So long as both sides call it a war, yet continue to define the term differently, there can be no remotely satisfactory conclusion for either. My cynical side would suggest that in ten years or so the war against terrorism will have been renamed a "police action".

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

I attended a lecture at the university of washington last week entitled "War, Terror, Jihad and Justice." One of the lectors main points was that the Sept. 11 attactss indeed were acts of war. Bin Laden and his group, he went on to say, are like pirates whose goal, rather than plunder, is ideological.
Rhetoric aside, they were not murderers, as the word is defined. Perhaps we don't have a word for what they were.