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

Darkthoughts
I bought a copy of the Quran, to understand what it really says. Should I start begging for my life?

Peet,

I am in no way under the impression that the United States goverment policys both present and past are without fault. I know that there have been mistakes made in the past and most likley there will be more. I think all countrys are guilty of favoring self serving policies that in hind sight wish they had not carried out.

I also believe that the US does many good thing though out the world that do not recieve the same spotlight as the bad ones.

What upsets me are the individals who make light of or justfy the death of over 5,000 of my neigbors. These people were guilty of no more than trying to support their family's. The ones who say it was your US policy's that brought this attack on you. The ones who try to insinuate that these mad men are only down trodden warriors fighting back at an oppresive policy. These people were murdered by fanatics who,s only motivation is to kill as many people as possible who do not agree with their Ideology. They seek to hijack the islamic religion and conform it to their fundalistic views. Then to start a religious war between the world. That will end with them as demi-gods over the human race. { I would have to agree with darkthoughts before he was moderated that these people are a cancer in our body of civilization and they must be removed if we are to save humanity}
I guess what really bothers me is people who this does not personally effect or who are living this nightmare who sit comfortly behind their computers thousands of miles from this horrid event and continuing biological warfare cases offering up their thoughts on what we did to derserve this. I can only wonder what their response
would be if it had happened in their back yard.

theanthrop,

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines MURDER as "to kill brutally" a murderer is someone who commits murder. A group of men who flys 4 airplanes into 3 buildings brutally killing over 5,000 people are murderers. A person who cannot fathom that is IGNORANT defined as
"Resulting from or showing a lack of knowledge or intelligence".

That reminds me of another lecture, entitled "The triumph of the yell". To summarize, we cannot argue anymore in modern society, because the yell has overpowered rational exposition. The yeller, rather than answer an argument with which he disagrees, merely attempts to discredit his opponent by calling him ignorant. It's much easier, isn't it? However, in doing so the yeller has commited an error in logic: statements do not vary in value with consideration to who spoke them, but must be evaluated of themselves.
Selective dictionary quotations do little to back up your point, as I could easily counter with "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." (Also from the American Heritage Dictionary) which shows us that murder is an act by one individual on another. Groups killing groups falls under the definition of war "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." (AHD) and piracy "A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane." (AHD)
I disagree with calling those responsible for Sept. 11 murderers for more than semantic reasons; you cannot authorize nor justify a warlike response to a murder. Only an act of war deserves the same in reciprocity.

I wonder though, should I have saved myself the trouble and just called you ignorant?

I apoligise. {I am not myself lately} no excuse

I think some people are calling it murder, justifiably, and some are calling it war, also justifiably. Labels are not important. What is important is the fact that someone, likely Laden, is responsible for the mass killings of innocent civilians for the simple reason that they are not of the same religion as that man. (I am not trying to be sexist, but it looks like it IS a man...) Whether they commited the crime of mass murder, or the killing of a large mass of civilians in a country with no declaration of war, is irrelevant.

This person, is useing terror to rule a country already, and they are attempting to gain the same control of this one. It does not matter if it is one misguided relgious nut or a whole group of them does not matter.

If it is murder, the guilty one, and those enableing him/her need to be punished. If it was an underhanded act of war, then the country at war with the USA will hopefully pay for this, not with the blood of the already oppressed civilians, but by losing the marble fist they are gripping the throat of the people by, and losing all vestiges of power.

I for one see it as murder, but I hope it was war. If it was murder, what the USA already has done is too much, and we have yet to actually punish the man responsible. If it was war, then it is they "excuse" needed to move the politicians in Washington to step in and help our fellow man, the one that has been forced to live under the foot of the Terrorist for too many long years. War is never a good thing, but sometimes, sometimes, it is only avoidable by appeasment, and all appeasment does is incourage the Terrorist and Tyrant.

If the USA backed down now, we would continue to be harrassed with the deaths of innocents among us. The terror would continue here and abroad, the oppressed would stay oppressed, and the Terrorist would grow bolder. Growing bolder, he would atack bigger and bigger things. Growing bolder, he would kill more and more.

Now here comes the kicker: He picked the USA to be the first country to be attacked, and if we fail to stop him now, he would attemp to continue the expansion of his realm of terror. Then it would be YOUR neighbors attacked, YOUR relatives inhaleing deadly Antrax, YOUR children living under the cloud of terror.

It took this blossoming cloud of terror to convince the politicians, and the people of this country to remove that which has been over-shadowing Afgans for the entirety of many of their short lives.

Rather than insulting USA, than saying we got what we diserved, you should be glad it did happen to the USA. It is not your country living in terror. It is not your country getting insulted, and kicked when down. You should say "Thank you" to the USA. We are forced to do your dirty work for you. If there is a war, YOU get to say "America and the Taliban started it, not us, why should we help?"



phreak

Who are you addressing with your capital second persons? I am a US citizen, my friend.

Starbirth, On those points we agree.

No-one "deserved" what happened on the 11th of September. It was an atrocity of the first magnitude and the people responsible for it should be punished with all speed. I have never said or knowingly implied anything to the contrary, yet you seem to go out of your way to (obliquely) accuse me of doing so.

My arguments are with individuals who refuse to recognise that this was an act of war, individuals who use terms specific to a single state, religion or legal system to describe acts which have global implications, and, in the case which seems to have brought about our own minor conflict of words, one particular individual who flat out stated that in the entire history of the USA your military had never targeted a civilian population. "NO NEVER"... As an apparently intelligent individual you, too, should be concerned about such distorted viewpoints being introduced into such an important discussion as "fact".

I am sorry if I assumed that you were not from the USA. Typically those making postings against the USA, or insulting the USA, were not from the USA. I read your quibble over definitions, wrote a response, and got carried away with trying to convey just how ridiculace arguing over the mild irregularities of the words we chose to discribe those monsters that attacked us on the 11th.


phreak

> "should say "Thank you" to the USA. We are forced to do your dirty work for you."

Who's dirty work? Didn't the USA fund and train Al-Qaeda? Wasn't it them who pxxsed them off during the gulf war? Wasn't the Taliban installed with US approval, against what the USSR had been fighting for?

Clean your own dishes...
-Xanthia

> "I can only wonder what their response would be if it had happened in their back yard."

Army brat here. Spent most of childhood helping parents check the underside and wheel arches of the car for bombs. Only witnessed two such bombs first hand, neither to anyone I knew personally, but the fear was always there of course.

The USA is not the first country to be effected by terrorism, nor will it be the last. I'm not sure whether to write off comments like that above to arrogance, ignorance, or unintended implication. The last of these, I hope.

Uber Phreak wrote: "He picked the USA to be the first country to be attacked, and if we fail to stop him now, he would attemp to continue the expansion of his realm of terror. Then it would be YOUR neighbors attacked, YOUR relatives inhaleing deadly Antrax, YOUR children living under the cloud of terror."

Well, there's now at least one confirmed anthrax attack in Nairobi, Kenya. The letter containing the spores originated in the US *before* the 11th, so it looks like he didn't wait to see what the US response would be. Not the first time Nairobi has been attacked, but it does seem a bit random... There's a fairly sizeable Moslem population here, who were even demonstrating in support of Bin Laden the other day. The government, OTOH, is very pro-USA. The anthrax letter was sent to a doctor though.

The story broke earlier today at Reuters. I don't have a link; I just heard about it from a British journalist here in the cyber-cafe.

Dear Starbirth,
There is no justification for what happened on Sept 11th.
However, I note that many Americans say that "yeah, we have mistakes in our policy, but we have good things too". I agree with that, the problem is the following: does the American public understand the depth of these mistakes? What is their implication outside the US, which was fairly insulated from the problems of the world prior to Sept 11.
Another problem is the role of Media in shaping the minds of the American public. there is NO contrasting point of views on foreign issues; the networks almost all say the same thing, always presenting the voice of the administration in a way or the other.
And while only very few Americans really know what is happening is a part like the Middle East, it only helps the public to continue to be unaware of the rest of the world, esp in the Middle East.

This is not meant to be Anti-American in any way; I hope that you don't perceive it as such.

Peace & Justice for ALL

kenya anthrax - http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1606000/1606200.stm

you know what, I doubt that the Kenyans are too happy about the Terrorist attacking them are they? Do you think they will just say,"hey, i guess we diserved to be attacked, so no big deal?"

Apparently no goverment in the world, exepting ONLY the USA has made mistakes in policy. Gee, where did YOUR perfect goverment come from?

I guess I didn't make myself clear, by America doing your dirty work I ment that the Terrorist isn't going to stop with spreading terror in the USA unless he is stopped. Power-mad tyrants never do. If America doesn't stop him, then you would have to stop him after we fell from our pacifism. That means you would be the ones critisized by other nations for not bowing to the Terrorist, your families dying, your workplaces attacked.

Even if it was US policies(which I doubt, mad-men just need excuses, to reasons) that set him off, and EVERY country has made mistakes, just some refuse to realize it, all countries would now be indanger if no one was willing to stop him.

Personally, the only mistake in policy on this issue that I see is that we allowed this murderer to gain power, that we listened to the appeasers, that rather than stricking before he got this powerful we listen to the people who said, leave him alone and he'll leave you alone.

We did not attack him the first time he attemped murder of innocents, that just made him bolder.

Before I get told off for calling him a murderer, I consider him a murderer because he killed innocent people of a country he is not at war with, and he killed, not out of a military strike type situation, but with a terrorist style. Terrorists don't wage war, unless it is civil war(oxy-moron). Then they are rebels. Terrorist in another country are just criminals, like the mob.

phreak

I think it is important to choose words carefully, in this situation and others. Already Dubya has been criticized for using words like "crusade" and "justice" inappropriately. Words are powerful. They can save lives and end them. I encourage everyone to consider not only their words' meanings, but their connotations and implications as well.

Uber Phreak,

When you say "you", whom are you addressing? You were responding to the information in my post, but were you responding to me? It makes it a lot easier to follow the thread if you (and others) make it clear to whom you're replying.

Now, when I mentioned the Kenyan anthrax, I wasn't trying to make any point at all; it was just a relevent FYI. The post of yours that I quoted, I quoted because that was the one to which the info was relevant. Did it appear that I was taking some position, either for or against some US policy?

Do you imagine that I am or am not a US citizen? Are you even talking to me?

There's something in your post I'd like to reply to, with information.

<>

Well, some of them do say that. More specifically, in relation to the 1998 embassy bombing, in which 12 Americans and about 200 Kenyans were killed, some Kenyans *do* justify that action by saying that the US Embassy was a legitimate target. Many other Kenyans are outraged by this, justifiably, I'd say. Last Friday, there were *some* Kenyan Moslems who marched past the site of the former US embassy, cheering that Osama (who was responsible for that bombing) is their hero. Other Kenyans, who are horrified by any terrorist attack, were shocked by the insensitivity of their bloodthirsty countrymen.

I would agree that OBL is a murderer. I think splitting hairs between "acts of war" and "acts of murder" is a pointless exercise that can only in the end be used to speciously justify the killing of God's children. Civilians are *never* a legitimate military target. Murderers *are* a legitimate target for justice.

Yes, I'm certain that someone could try to make a case that anyone who supports the US trade policies by, for example, working in the WTC, is a murderer, but that would be so indirect and convoluted (and rude) as to be indistinguishable from a dirty lie.

RE: 816

how is saying "justice" using too strong of a word? Criminals go to court and get punished accordingly. That is justice. How is that too strong? Justice is by definition "just." Just is getting a fair amount of punishment or reward. Justice can't EVER be to strong of a word. It is like claiming "fair" to be too strong of a word, or "equal". Justice used in the sense Pres. Bush uses it, is definitly not to strong. It is the right word to use. Laden comitted a crime. He gets a fair punishment. Justice is served. Nothing too strong about it.

P.S. I am happy the Kenyens are glad to be the target of a mad man. If they thing they all diserve to die, that is their right, and if they think living under a cloud of terror is a good thing, good for them. Me, I like being free. Free from terror, iron fists contorling me, and able to think outside the box fed to them by their T.V. sets.

phreak

phreak, Theanthrope never said "justice" was too strong a word. (s)he said it was used "inappropriately", I presume referring to the phrase "Operation Infinite Justice" which Bush used either to inflame the situation with the Muslim world, or as a staggering display of ignorance on the part of the man with the most advisors on the face of the earth.

Different words have different meanings. Pointing out the differences is not equivalent to justifying atrocity. The hair splitting you mention is important when you consider the appropriate responses to "acts of murder" and "acts of war" i.e. you don't send cruise missles after a murderer.
It seems to me that some words have become dangerously interchangeable, such as "war" and "murder"; "retaliation" and "justice"; and "muslim" and "terrorist." Confusing these words and their meanings can lead to attitudes and opinions that in turn lead to escalating violence.