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

Perium.

Finally we agree on something.



T´mershi Duween.

"Why hasn´t Osama Bin Laden retaliated yet?"An excellent question, T.D., and one I too, had had..

Lentilla, I was not *raised* as a Christian, and on my way to where I am with it, I passed through fundamentalism, which in NZ is very American influenced. (Every so often, the Procter and Gamble are Satanists rumour sweeps through again - last time, I was able to tell my brother and his then-girlfriend, that it was false...His current girlfriend is Catholic, just the oppposite - too liberal for him sometimes. )Point is, i am sometimes scared by the World Govt=antichrist idea, such is the power of ten years of a way of thinking, and the 'Left Behind'books, which I began reading, curiosity dictated- they are heavy with schadenfreude, which bugs me a lot... I am a MAJOR Star Trek fan, and never thought of the Federation as a world govt, tho' of course it is! In Blakes Seven, the Federation is bad, which is interesting.

This post has been removed.

It's quite interesting how the news services in the US are ignoring all possibilities of others, apart from Osama, being responsible for the Anthrax attacks.

Speaking to many Americans in America, a lot of them suspect that it is local crazys responsible. Many would like to think that it's Osama, as it's a more reasuring feeling of having an enemy that is a long way away then right in your own back yard.

What's not helping is the fact that many very prominant politicians have publicly stated that they belive it to be the work of Osama (without any proof at this stage). I guess they would not like to be proven wrong.

This whole bible "digest" sounds like it was cooked up by a bunch of neo-right "christian" (I use the quotation marks because I see nothing to do with the christian religion in a lot of modern american christians - you're supposed to live a life of poverty, help the less-well off and not covet thy neighbours ox and stuff. You're not meant to buy sackloads of guns and give your money to some white-toothed man on the telly (anyway, according to Jesus, if you do you help bar him from Heaven)) theologists during the cold war to explain how communism was the anti-christ. If you read the relevant parts of the bible, I'm sure it says almost none of these things in these modern terms. Anyway, if you're not a christian (and I'm not) predictions like these come from the diciples interpreting the events and world they saw around them and applying Christ's teachings to them. They lived in the Roman world and saw a world almost under one "banner" (Rome) and knew that for all their high-minded talk, the Caesars were corruptible and cruel. Christianity was a rebellion against Roman ideals - greed, cruelty, power, status. The diciples probably thought a Roman emperor would eventually untie the world and stop the squabbling tribes. All this power would go to his head and he would instigate a mass-tyranny. This rather cynical view of humanity was nothing new then and is nothing new now, but is unfortunately, true. If the world was united under one government, whoever ran it would go power-mad and all the high-minded ideals that the world-government was founded on would be lost. This isn't "revelation" this is instinctive-sense

Off topic, but in continuation of what I've read above......

Surprisingly enough, I've read that the so-called armageddon prophesied was the end of the Jerusalem Church and the begining of the Diaspora (Greco-Roman) Church. There was a rebellion in which the Jewish Church at whose head was James the brother of Jesus, fought to the last man and woman. The ultimate end of which was the fact that roman soldiers breached the Holy of Holies and thereby defiled the house of god, which can be seen as an end to the once powerful nation in the mid-east.

Yes! Perium, a lot of what's in Revelation has already occurred (and in the 'little apocalypse' in Mt (?). That has led sceptics to say "oh, it was all written after the fact" which of course needn't be the case... However,many people don't know that. Of course,some people talk about a prophecy having several fulfillments. BTW, what do people think about this plane crash today in Queens? Nowt to do with it all, even Dubya concedes that - I am reminded of a New Agey type book I read in '98, and which said that one of the New Age signs of coming 'changes' was an increase in earthquakes, wars etc (so far so Christian-seeming) but the other thing she mentioned was a massive increase in transportation disasters - buses, trains and planes etc. Both off topic, I suppose, but maybe not entirely.

Bible scholars will tell you that Revelations was not a book of prophecy, but a cleverly disguised letter to the Hebrew people - at the time they were being enslaved and oppressed by the Romans. The Beast was the Roman Empire, and the number of the Beast was calculated from Nero's full name... In the Hebrew alphabet, it adds up to 666.

Something to remember is that every thousand years people go crazy and do all sorts of weird stuff. I don't know why that is - maybe our tensions build up and the most insane of us are forced to go out and bludgeon their kids, or drive flaming 18-wheelers around downtown Dallas.

Deidzoeb,

I'm handicapped by the fact that I am unable to post URLs on this site to show you the reference materials, and I cannot post more than a few lines of the material on this site without possibly violating copyright law. When I did a search on terrorism the first time, I got so much material that I was unable to include it all - so I gave you what I thought was a pretty clear definition. You interpreted it in a way which conflicted with other articles I had read, so the next time I posted to the forum, I included yet another definition from another site. Now I'm getting in trouble because you think I'm changing the rules. I'm not - I promise! There's just so much data out there on this phenomenon that it's hard to be brief (as you may have noticed! )

"It is not just silly semantics on my part to point out how the US and their apologists use loaded language."

I submit to you that you are using emotionally loaded language, and this is the very thing I would like to avoid. Calling a supporter of U.S. activities an apologist is a little loaded, wouldn't you agree? Using the word 'terrorism' is fraught with emotional baggage - it's guaranteed to stir up any Americans who might be reading this thread. I would have no choice if you continue to use the word but to consider you a propagandist... you're undermining the effectiveness of your argument.

"The reason that you and others continue to bristle at the accusation that the US has engaged in "terrorism," even though you admit that some of its actions meet the various definitions, is that the word is loaded with propaganda value."

I can agree with you that the U.S. has engaged in activities which I find distasteful. I will not agree that these acts qualify as terrorism. It's the logical fallacy of "all cats are furry. Mice are furry. Mice like cheese, therefore cats like cheese." So you are correct in that we should avoid the word terrorism - or at least agree on a definition that we can live with. (Actually I had a cat that liked cheese - but it would eat lettuce too, so there you go. Weird animal.)

The news media is a whole other bag of worms. I don't mean to rant here, but you mentioned that they tend to use leading phrases like 'terrorist activity' when talking about Palestinians, but not Israelis. Well, for the past year, we've heard very little about Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan or Turkey. We've heard a lot about Darva Conger, about the Bush election, more gossip about the Clintons, everything you could possibly imagine except for useful news that we might want to hear. Our news media is as competitive as anything else, and will show what it thinks people want to see. So they end up showing us the same tripe, regurgitated from channel to channel. They're afraid to take a chance on some news story that nobody else is covering, because that'll take time away from a story that they might need to cover because somebody else is... etc. So until September 11th, I've been skipping the news - watching ITN when I can catch it on PBS. Now I feel like I've been cheated! Argh. I guess I need to get cable so I can watch CNN for some real news. (We need a Dennis Miller smilie...)

Later...

Lentilla,

"When I did a search on terrorism the first time, I got so much material that I was unable to include it all - so I gave you what I thought was a pretty clear definition. You interpreted it in a way which conflicted with other articles I had read..."

I interpreted that definition at face value, and I still don't see where either of the definitions you presented earlier preclude nations from being terrorists. I should not have accused you of trying to dodge the issue by using a second definition of the term.

We agree that the Sept 11 attacks constitute an unlawful use of force against civilians for political purposes. I don't think we need to fully understand their motives or justifications (meeting the definitions of "terrorism" that some others proposed) to see that it was a tragic, evil attack.

We don't need to understand the motives or justifications when the US supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor to see how it is similar to the Taleban's alleged support of Al-Qaeda. We don't need to call it "terrorism" as long as we agree that US supported the unlawful use of force against civilians for political purposes. A short list of similar US support for unlawful uses of force against civilians for political purposes might include Israel, Turkey, debatably the bombing of Iraq or Cambodia or Laos, less debatably Nicaragua, Guatemala, (already becoming a long list)...

Yes, if we really wanted to discuss politics and trade links on interesting articles, we would have to move to a forum outside of h2g2. I'd like to show you a lot of interesting articles at a website called Zmag that explain the problems with this war in terms of the international laws currently being broken.

You're right that I was using loaded language in calling you an "apologist." I'm sorry. (Now I'm an apologist!) But you're right that I should be able to convince you with logic instead of with emotional arguments or accusations. Now can we talk about that alleged "fallacy?"...

"I can agree with you that the U.S. has engaged in activities which I find distasteful. I will not agree that these acts qualify as terrorism."

Then which of your two definitions do not apply to the US? First the DOD definition which you gave in post 966: "the unlawful use of - or threatened use of - force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

Like when the CIA helps rebels overthrow a democratically elected government in Guatemala. That one is very clear, fairly well known and difficult to dispute, but happened in 1954. More recently, there's the unlawful way that high members of the Reagan administration (probably including Reagan himself and GHW Bush) sent money and weapons to the Contra rebels of Nicaragua, even after Congress enacted legislation forbidding it.

Not sure why I have to keep bringing up examples to make it clear how the US fits that definition, when you already say, "I agree with you that these acts [the US acting as puppeteer, trying to keep dictators down] are reprehensible." What is it about them that's reprehensible, if they're partially justified somehow, if it's "merely poor politics"?

We could try the definition you gave in post 996: "Terrorism is intended to produce fear; by implication, that fear is engendered in someone other than the victim. In other words, terrorism is a psychological act conducted for its impact on an audience."

To accuse anyone of terrorism by this definition, we have to guess their intentions. I think this is silly, because it claims that the actions are somehow less evil if the intentions are "noble." Like the many times the US has supported dictators in order to weaken democratically elected or popularly supported socialist or communist regimes like Guatemala, Vietnam, etc. Did the US intend to produce fear in the population when they forced South Vietnamese civilians into "strategic hamlets" by bombing their homes? Should it matter what they intended, when the Vietnamese people must have perceived it as an invading force destroying their villages and herding them into concentration camps?

When the US Secretary of State Madeline Albright said, "We think the price is worth it," about 500,000 Iraqi children dying due to US/UN sanctions, did she expect that this would not terrify citizens of some Middle Eastern nations? Does this kind of message have a psychological impact on an audience, or is the US absolved somehow because they did not "intend" for the obvious fear that this kind of statement would cause? (Blame it on the UN, but the US could have at least spoken out against UN sanctions, or ignored them like other UN directives we ignore.)

I guess we do have to pin down a definition if we're going to talk about this. I don't like the second definition because it makes no sense to say that the intent behind evil actions minimizes how evil they are. And as I look over that first DOD definition again, it occurs to me that it almost describes all wars -- "the use...or threat...of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies..." The only part that distinguishes every war from meeting this definition of terrorism is the qualifier "unlawful." So then terrorism really means breaking international law.

In that case, here's simple, final proof: in 1984 "US mines Nicaraguan harbours and is condemned by the World Court for doing so." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1225000/1225283.stm] The unlawful use of force by the United States against individuals to intimidate the Nicaraguan government and society. Now we can launch some F-16s over LA and demand the extradition of Ronald Reagan from California, plus as much of his "terrorist network" (the Reagan Administration) as are still competent to stand trial.

Hey Della,

Did you read what I put on your home page under the title of History?

(Sorry off topic again guys)

Following the World Court ruling that the US's mining of Nicaragua's harbours was illegal they insisted theUS pay damages. The US simply refused. What a bunch of sh*ts - not even the balls to say "it's a fair cop".

The stuff on Guatemala - where at least 150,000 civilians were killed and Nicaragua where conservative estimates suggest 250,000 died - are typical of the US covert operations, which currently includes the dangerous situation in Columbia, where the US are still waging war and where the US are currently trying to tie FARC into thier terrorist hit list.

This is all very true. As I have pointed out before, I support the current US actions in Afghanistan (bombing of cities/towns aside which I am against for obvious reasons) including the removal of the Taliban from power and the extradition and trial of Bin Laden. However, I trust and support the US military and government not one bit. They are a means to an end.

One thing I wish the Americans would understand is the concept of hypocrisy and why it upsets people. The US hates foreign governments interfering in their internal politics (rightly) yet interferes in the politics of other countries and sees nothing wrong with this. They deplore attacks on America (righty), yet excuse their attacks on foreign nations for roughly the same reasons.

I would like to think the US government will be able to shake off this absurd "cold warrior" mentality it seems to maintain along with this assumption that it is always right and that anyone who disagrees with it is backward/demented/wrong/jealous. I also wish it would stop believing that it alone has the right to "police" the world. It has neither the capability nor the right and, besides, it knows little about the world outside it's borders.

The US has a part to play in the new and peaceful world once the "war against terrorism" is won (and I think it will be won). But it has to accept that it is not the only Great Power in the world and that it will have to share this part to play with others. And talking of which, if Americans think terrorism is so darned wrong and wicked, close down that School of Americas or whatever you call it now.

Yep, just read it, and left an acknowkledgement there. (What did I do wrong with the spelling just there? Something's wrong...) Have you the name of the author? See ya there.. D.

Yes! Didn't Reagan say that about the Soviet Union? How ironic. I am writing or trying to, a story about a woman's first experience of combat, it's in an sf setting,the woman is a soldier for what I decided to call the 'Imperium', guess who they represent?
Stargate SG-1, is a cool sf series, but I was grossed out by last night's episode - the SG-1 team go on a mission with a bunch of Russians. Only one survives - as I predicted. Point is, the stargate technology is an American posession (in the programme) and no one questioned that til last night's episode. The USA being the worlds' policeman again...
If it looks like an empire, smells like an empire, sounds like an empire then it probably is an empire...

This morning, NZ radio news said it is all over, as the Northern Alliance had taken Kabul. There was (literal) dancing in the streets - men having their beards cut, Western pop music tapes heard for the first time in 5 years. One woman compared it to the liberation of Europe from the Nazis in 1945. Point is, I don't like the Taliban, but I don't like the Nthn Alliance just as much! I predict (and I am not the only one) that in 5 years time, the Americans will be fighting the Nthn Alliance and pretending that they (the NA) were the enemy all along! Dubya was quoted on the radio just now - as saying that a new govt must be installed immediately - one he approves, I am assuming. The crash yesterday, in Queens, seems to have nothing to do with the 911 event, but i am surprised how many people here in NZ would like it to be! Judging by what they are saying on the radio, that is. Frustrated it's all just petering out, probably.

I got moderated off! (Hurt tones). I am not sure why - I simply said that our local newspaper had said that the FBI were sure that the spreading of the anthrax in letters was nowt to do with bin Laden or Al Qaeda. Thing is, they said the same thing again the other day, that the FBI are sure it's a disgruntled loner with technical knowledge. (Not clear on whether said loner is a foreigner or an American, tho') I will wait to see if this gets moderated - if it does, moderators, I am sorry, despite yr email, I am still not clear why.. as I didn't say anything offensive! Truly!

Lentilla...

< I guess I need to get cable so I can watch CNN for some real news.>

..you wrote.

Do you think that´s a good idea?.As far as we´re informed in europe, CNN has been turned into a gouvernment-dictated propaganda channel, exercising selfcencorship.Shame on them

It´s hard to get decent information these days.It all started out with "war against terrorism", then when USA moved into Afghanistan, they allied themselves with "The Northern Alliance" and it turned into "The War In Afghanistan".This would make sense a long way down the road, but then today, when Kabul was taken, for the first time I heard the word "The Anti-Taliban Movement" applied to the northern alliance.That is in Denmark of course, and may just be a coincidence but as I am all for conspiration theories it is my duty to find this a bit suspicious

Seriously I think it is weird, the way they change words the instant things are (r)evolving.And as for the "Anti Taliban Movement"/USA relations in the future.Yes I would bet my money anytime that they fight each other within 4 years from now.But it seems that USA get it´s new gouvernment installed in Afghanistan with the willing help of UN and the rest of the so-called free world.Yeehaw.Aided by the so-called free press.Double Yeehaw.


So whatever happened to "War Against Terrorism" ? Where is Osama Bin Laden? Will they get him? or don´t they really care, now that they have a new gouvernment to play with?Is it really legal to just install a new gouvernment in another country? And I´m sure I can come up with a lot more annoying questions if I just watch the news a little longer(I would like to point out that I´m not just ranting against USA but also their allies,wich includes my own country, and partially the UN).


"There´s something rotten in the state of Dnmark!"


William Shakespeare.







T´mershi Duween.

Zagreb

Do you really think "War Against Terrorism" wil/can be won?

That amazes me

T´m.. D...