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

This is an interesting theory. I've always thought it odd that an organisation as covert as an international terrorist network should have a figurehead happy to tell the world who he is and show his face. In the past, such wanted figures tended to operate under "codenames" and not reveal their identities. Someone suggested to me that Osama bin Laden is on an ego-trip and that is why he likes to appear on the world's TV and goad the West. This is plausible, but then so is Perium's theory.

"Current terrorism theory - and I'm just quoting out of my head here - is that any terrorist organization typically runs by the cell system. Each cell contains three or four members, all of whom know each other's faces, names and identity. They don't know how many other cells there are, or who are in the other cells - this is the safest way for an underground association to work. If anybody's captured, they can't be tortured to give up information - they don't know anything useful."
Like the Bajorans and the Cardassians on Deep Space 9, or is that too frivolous?
Encouragement is one thing, legal responsibility is another - and the Americans seemed to "rush to judgement" - I was hearing "Osama done it" within 2 hours! Unless this evidence Zagreb mentioned really is that incontrovertible.

I really don't doubt that he is responsible for encouraging others to commit these acts of terrorism. I would still like to see the evidence.

Really, we've fixated upon Osama as a figurehead, but his death won't solve anything. America is celebrating because the Taliban are running for cover (while saying they have the U.S. where they want them) but the Taliban is only part of the problem. They chose to harbor terrorists - but terrorists are all over the world. If the American goal is to eliminate terrorism, we're going to be at it a while.

There's a lizard in Texas called a glass lizard. It's your basic garden-variety green lizard. It has evolved a remarkable survival technique - its tail breaks off when yanked upon, and will wiggle around for at least a minute after it's no longer attached to the lizard. The average predator will be distracted by the wiggling bit of tail, while the lizard runs for safety.

Star Trek actually has a lot of insight on current affairs. Remember the episode when Capt. Picard is captured and tortured by the Cardassians?

Now that I think about it, Star Trek used to make a habit of cribbing details from the culture of just about every nationality to help an alien characterization along. It shows a lack of creativity. I give full credit to the Star Trek people, because they seemed to realize this themselves, and current alien creatures are more than cobbled-together quilts of examples of humanity.

Vulcans = Oriental (Japan)
Romulans = Oriental (China)
Klingons = Russians (Arms race, competition for jurisdiction)
Cardassians = Arabs (or any nation with a police state)

Early Star Trek -
Remember the black and white guys? One of the very first episodes about racism featured these two guys with white & black greasepaint. One was half black, half white, and one was half white, half black. There's lots more of that - but for some reason, when I try to think of another example, all I can think of is 'Spock's Brain.' "Worst Episode Ever!"

Deidzoeb: I haven't given up on Zmag - still slogging my way through the incredibly huge morass of articles written since Sept. 11th. I must say that it's given me plenty of food for thought. (Much of it I'm ambivalent about - I see their point, but I can't agree.)

What I see as being the biggest argument is the right of the U.S. to defend itself. Many believe that the terrorist attacks did not give the U.S. the right to retaliate, and they're saying that it's the responsibility of the UN Security council to administer reprimands. The U.S., on the other hand, insists that it has the right to retaliate to prevent future attacks from occurring.

Did a little reading about the International Criminal Court too. The U.S. is claiming that they'd receive unfair persecution from the Court because it's regarded as the 'greatest military and economic power' in the world. That whole thing is weird, in my opinion. A little scary, too. The U.S. government shouldn't be scared of being prosecuted under international law - but perhaps it's afraid of being picked on for being the policeman for so long.

Anyway, it's all very interesting, and I'm having to exercise my brain by forming opinions about things I've never really thought about before... Patriotism, world affairs, human rights, and politics. I suspect a lot of Americans are experiencing the same sort of mental revolution. Whee! (Now my head's spinning)

I disagree that the American war on Afghanistan counts as self-defense. That is probably the biggest issue in deciding whether the war is just or not.

Surely you have the Arabs and Russians the wrong way around?

I would imagine that the evidence is pretty sparce, largely circumstantial. It's unlikely there's a video of bin Laden giving the order or a signed piece of paper saying "Go blow up the Twin Towers, signed Osama". This may be why the US doesn't want to show the evidence to anyone, it would never stand up in court. I think the US and it's intelligence services are going by gut-instinct (and you can't blame them, he is the most likely suspect). The "evidence" stuff may just be to persuade the world they're acting "by the book". Like I've said before, I don't know why they feel the need to do this. If they said "screw the book!" what can anyone do about it?

This post has been removed.

If I recall correctly, there have been at
least two trials of terrorists in the United
States. Juries convicted the defendants in both
cases. Indeed, the sentencing for the defendants
in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was about
to be handed down by the judge at the time of the
Sept. 11 attack.

Yes, Bin Laden should go on trial. How could this
be accomplished? He didn't come forward for trial.
Taliban didn't produce him. I'll grant that there
might have other ways of negotiating his surrender,
but would these have had much chance of working?
If there were a trial, we would all find out what
evidence the U.S. has dug up. I blame Bin Laden
for denying us this chance.

Chill, Autist

I'm also annoyed at the US attitude to international law. It may be an ass, sometimes, all law is. The point is the US takes this attitude that no other nation can interfere with the way it does things, but that it has the right to lay down the law to other nations and meddle in their internal affairs as it sees fit. "Get that plank out your eye" as Jesus once said.

However, in this instance I understand why the US feels the Law is a problem. They are sure Osama did it, and even though I'm not as convinced as they are, I can understand why.

And yet they don't understand that they deserve everything they get. And more.

"And yet they don't understand that they deserve everything they get."

Autist, that won't help persuade anyone to stop this war. The janitors and waitresses and even the money-changers in the WTC did not deserve to be killed just because our stupid presidents keep supporting terrorist nations and totalitarian regimes around the world. We don't need to argue that the Sept 11 attacks were a good thing or "deserved" in order to argue that the US govt has done terrorist things in its past, or to argue that this war is evil and will be unsuccessful at preventing future terrorist attacks.

If you defer you decision making to a government who commits acts of war then you have to accept responsibility for whatever they choose to do in your name. That's what democracy is all about. That's why US civilianns are valid targets and Afgan civilians aren't.

"If you defer you decision making to a government who commits acts of war then you have to accept responsibility for whatever they choose to do in your name. That's what democracy is all about. That's why US civilianns are valid targets and Afgan civilians aren't."

Huh? US Civilians, who are presented with a so-called "choice" between one republicrat or another republicrat, who are standing shoulder to shoulder on a line of political thinking that stretches for miles, are valid targets?

Are you suggesting that only citizens of countries run by a power elite that seized power from duly appointed authority are *not* valid targets? Or that only those citizens who are active participants in a revolutionary movement?

Please clarify. I'd like to respond to you, but first I'd like to know that I'm responding to what you really said.

Autist, this is utter sh*t and you should know better

US civilians are *not* valid targets, no civilians ever are. Anyway, US citizens have no control over their military and certainly not their secret service. They elect representatives who have, at best, a cursory influence over these two bodies. Even the President only has real authority over the army, I doubt he has as much control over CIA as those belivers in the US Constitution would like to believe.

I would imagine you are from a wealthy First-World nation. If terrorists ever decide to attack your country on the basis of what it has supported or failed to condemn I expect no condemnation from you.

Before this discussion degenerates into vitriolic name-calling, please, everyone, take a deep breath or two, count to ten -- or a thousand, if that's what it takes to calm down, ok?

There are some interesting, downright unusual political and philosophical ideas being shared in this discussion, and I would like to continue learning from the discussants..

I suggest if someone wishes to express a controversial viewpoint, they provide a reasonably detailed explanation, or rationale, and refrain from merely posting short, inflammatory comments

Thanks, friends

If i, in my work place, witness someone else in breach of saftey regulations, and i do not stop it, then i am liable to prosecution. It's called joint culpability. If it's reasonable over wearing a poxy hard hat, then i think it's valid when it comes to war. These actions are commited in our name. We deserve to face the retaliation.

There has to be a reasonability test. The commission of an act 'in my name' is not the same as the commission of an act with my approval. How do you propose I stop Dubya from destroying what's left of Afghanistan 'in my name'? Write letters? Done Attend protest rallies? Done. Storm the White House and *make* him stop? Unlikely to succeed. Explain to each member of the United States Armed Forces just why s/he should not be participating in the destruction? Logistically impractical.

Just because they *SAY* something is being done in my name doesn't make it so.

NBY

Autist,

"If you defer your decision making to a government who commits acts of war then you have to accept responsibility for whatever they choose to do in your name. That's what democracy is all about. That's why US civilianns are valid targets and Afgan civilians aren't."

One of the reasons that this statement is absurd is that the US has signed agreements like the Geneva Conventions and UN charter that say civilians should be off limits in war. Even though the US has violated these agreements, even though I hope many criminals like Kissinger and others will still be brought to trial for crimes against international laws, that Geneva-signing part of the govt is the part that should be representing me when other nations or terrorists are deciding which civilians "deserve" to be killed.

Secondly, I should be held personally culpable for the first four years of the Clinton regime, abstained from voting in '96, and voted for Ralph Nader last year. To what extent does this make me responsible for the behavior of my government? Even then, I wouldn't have voted for Clinton the first time if I had known he was going to keep bombing Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, or get involved in Kosovo, or lie about letting gays in the military, or fire Joycelyn Elders for advocating reasonable sexual education. Do I deserve to be killed for actions that I disagreed with, just because I voted for a liar?

Surely you're not saying that everyone in the US who fails to engage in active rebellion against the US govt "deserves" to be killed? I'm afraid you're falling into the George W. Bush mentality "either with us or against us." It's unfair and unrealistic. Opposing Bush does not mean that we favor Osama, and remaining a citizen of the United States should not mean we approve of or take responsibility for the ways our elected officials misrepresent us.

Which civilians in the US (if any) would you feel exempt from sharing responsibility for crimes perpetrated by the US? People in jail for violently protesting against the US? Is speaking out enough to distance one's self from responsibility, or do we have to be John Brown, actively trying to overthrow the govt for you to see that some of us are not a part of it?

Following your argument to its logical conclusion seems to mean that no civilians anywhere should be protected from acts of war. How can you say that US civilians are "valid" targets because of the crimes our government has committed, yet Afghan civilians are not valid, when the Taliban is clearly not innocent of stoning women to death, human rights abuses, etc? I don't mean to say that our war on them is justified because of their horrible human rights record, but if our civilians are valid military targets, so are theirs.

And what other aspects of the Geneva Conventions or UN charter would you disregard or broadly re-interpret?