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

This is a good point. The resistance movements against the Nazis during WWII were terrorist, as was the ANC against the racist South African government of the late 20th century. Terrorism is sometimes justified, but only if used as a resort against a government that cannot be fought any other way and only if the targets are non-civilian. Most terrorism we see today ignores these last two points.

I make no apologies for the long post that follows.

Feel free to pick bits out of context, misinterpret what I have to say, or just ignore me completely.

I would appreciate it if someone would clearly, and kindly, correct me if I am in any way misinterpreting what I have had the distinct displeasure of reading here.

Some of you seem to be saying that wholesale murder of innocents is ok as long as the goal is peace. Is that right?

Some of you are saying 'terrorism' is ok as long as it is not perpetrated against civilians. Is that also right?

I guess I completely misundertood what the word 'terrorism' meant.
Or is there some special definition of which I am ignorant?

So what some of you are saying is, in effect, if another person refuses to negotiate with you, refuses to engage you in conversation, cuts off any channels of communication, plans and carries out violent murder, but is doing all this in the name of peace, that it is not only ok, but is commendable. Is that correct?

Do I have it right? Am I missing something here?

I really am trying to understand, my friends. Are you trying to understand me?

Let me illustrate, again, for the sake of form at least:

If I injure you, knowingly, you have the natural right to seek compensation. Do you agree?

If I injure you, unknowingly, do you still have the right?

If you communicate with me, if you talk with me, if you show me that I have injured you, albeit unknowingly, you could rightfully expect compensation. I would think so; do you agree?

If you just come up and attack me, and I do not know why, what then?

Perhaps you have a reason. I would probably get the point that you must have a reason. I would also very likely not be inclined to sympathy.

Turn it around.

You have injured me. I get ticked off. I don't know, or care, if you are aware you have injured me. I assume you know, and don't care. I attack you. Unbeknownst to me, you were not aware you had injured me. So now, you think I launched an unprovoked attack. You retaliate. And so the cycle continues... Is this clear? Do you follow?

I suppose this all sounds patronising, but I seem to have difficulty making myself understood, and I am really trying to be as clear as I can be. So I most humbly, and sincerely, ask you, once again:

Do you really think the answer to violence is more violence?

Please do not quote this circumstance or that circumstance; this cause and that effect. The chain of injury and retaliation has a beginning that is lost in antiquity. The end of the chain is either a bleak future of death and murder, or one of peace. Can you see this? Is my logic so terribly flawed?

You decide. Can peace be attained by violent means?

The US blames Osama Bin Laden and the El Quaida and the Taleban. They blame the US. The Palestinians blame the Israelis. The Israelis blame the Palestinians. The Pakistanis blame the Indians. The Indians blame the Pakistanis... shall I continue?

Do you not see how foolish this is?

Yes, oppression and evil must be resisted. But can this be accomplished by more violence and evil? Is there such a thing as 'good violence?' Is there really no other way?

When you or I see the results of hatred, the violence that surrounds us, we are being given a choice. It is up to each of us to make the correct choice; to make a decision to stop violence, and that cannot be accomplished by creating more violence, can it?

Do you expect your governments, your 'leaders' to do what is right? How can they? The 'leaders' are only human beings, and even the most well-intentioned and most 'powerful' are only individuals, with no more or less power than you or I. The only reason they appear to exert more power is because you and I provide it to them, explicitly or implicitly.

Do you actually believe the ordinary, common, Afghani or Iraqi or American citizen wishes you ill? Do ordinary, everyday-type humans just naturally wish to kill other ordinary, everyday-type humans?

Which leads me to ask, how do we, ordinary human beings, affect the whole world?

I think it is quite obvious that we affect the world by what we do and what we say.

If you talk to me, face to face, you may teach me something, and I may teach you something. The very act of communication profoundly affects each of us, for good or ill. Hopefully for good.

But here, on this incredible invention, what we say to each other can be viewed by many, many individuals throughout the world. And each of those individuals can also communicate through this magic device. And each voice has the same impact.

You and I have no idea who sees what we have to say to one another. There are many 'lurkers' out there, and in here.

This is unprecedented in human history. Not all that long ago, in pre-historic times, when we humans lived in very small groups, the main concern was survival in a harsh, wild environment, without science, without medicine. Then we did not have terrorism, or war. We likely had crime of some kind, because we are a contentious species; I am not a proponent of the 'noble savage' notion. But there was nothing approaching the wholesale slaughter that is the hallmark of 'civilized' man.

Now we are regaining what was lost: the ability to simply talk with each other, as individuals, if not face to face, then at least mind to mind. Like it or not, we are becoming a global village, and soon you and I will be able to talk to ordinary, everyday Afghanis, Chinese, Inuit, and even Canadians!

So, do you not think it might be a better idea to at least try to talk things over before we bomb each other back to the caves?

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I am a humanist so it bugs me when people kill each other. A lot. Problem is, certain ideologies can only be met with violence. Try reading up on Fascism, not the cartoon goosestepping baddies but the real ideology in all it's Darwinian All-Power-To-The-Strong ugliness. It was an evil, evil, ideology that had all the ability to succeed. It failed because good, if flawed, people matched it's violence. Ugly truth but there you go.

Whole-heartedly agree! As has been stated many, many times on this forum: fighting violence with violence is just plain stupid.

However, you must recognize the fact that we are dealing with very stupid people here.

In one corner we have the Republicans, headed up by Bush: not exactly the brightest spark. He's sole role seems to be appeasing the lobotomized mass of right-wing nationalists formed by the christian coalition, NRA and oil conglomerates.

In the other corner we have the muslim religious extremists. Ignoring the fact that 14 of 16 suspected 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, lets take a look at Afghanistan: Literacy rate (age 15 and over can read and write, as of 1999) was 15% women, 47.2% men. And I put it to you that the "classics" we all know and love were not on their reading list. Actually, you can be pretty sure that religious education and corresponding reading material would feature highly.

So we have a rather volitile mixture of religous and nationalistic *beliefs* on both sides and you want to bring them to the same table for a nice chat?

I suggest that these people are incapable of even the semblance of rational discussion as has been demonstrated by the acts of violence on *both* sides.

Yes, have active discussions, but have them between people who at least have some sense.

Actually most of those who have had an education in Afganistan (and all the women) were educated under the soviets, and the works of Tolstoy and Ghandi would have been high on the reading list.

The assumtion that terrorism by rebel / guerrilla groups is always wrong, also goes hand in hand with the assumption that terrorism perpetrated by states is justified and legitimate.

If anything, the opposite is true.

I'm going to digress here a little bit, so be prepared.

What I'm talking about is not the war in afghanistan it is war in general.

I think it foolish to call someone stupid when they are willing to fight for something they believe in. Committed is a much better word. When someone is prepared to sacrifice their life for a cause then that is committement, not stupidity.

I further think that there are times when all other possiblities have been exhausted, all policies, all treaties, all suits for peace. There are times in other words, when there has been no other choice but violence to meet violence.

Oh, I'll commend the humanist who says that life is more important than any political goal and that violence is evil, but on the other hand I would ask you what good your principles would do you if you were dead. Principles and morals are for the living, and it is the duty of a soldier to fight for your right to have those principles.

So the question I believe is, "Is it right to fight violence with violence." And the answer to that question is yes. Your life is the only thing that allows you to have principles and morals, without it you are dust with no words. To defend your right to disagree is a noble calling. I for one will not call that person stupid. I for one will not insult their sacrifice.

Neither then should you.

You might even argue that war and violence is a necessity, because if it didn´t exist you wouldn´t have anything to meassure peace against.
But that is another discussion and might even not belong to this thread, but there it is.

T´mershi Duween.

Perium, here I must disagree.

A truely smart person or people would find a solution to a problem *without* resorting to violence. By this very fact they are considered smart.

And also by this definition, people who resort to violence are considered stupid. The only thing these people are *commited* to is continual stupidity.

You may belive that there are causes in this world which would justify the killing of civilians and soldiers: taking young man and women, sticking a gun in their hands and having them rush machine guns as has been done in the past, just so you can show that you are right!

I truely would have thought that such notions would have been altered when we were exposed to the horrors of wars gone past. But it seems that there are people still out there that believe that if someone doesn't do what you tell them, then it's perfectly fine to use lethal force.

The sacrafice that people have made throughout the years is only equaled by the stupidity exhibited by *governments* in resorting to violence ahead peaceful resolution. I weep for the lives lost to the cry patriotic rhetoric filled with many "noble callings".

The solution in my mind is simple: if representatives of two sides meet to discuss a solution and that solution appears to be war, then choose new representatives. Out of the billions of people in this world, some of them will have a solution that does not involve violence.

But what happens when you have no voice, when your representatives will not be heard, when there is no option to talk. Do you give up? Do you decide to be destroyed rather than be the destroyer? Or do you turn to force to attempt to tip the ballance? Violence doesn't solve anything, but it can change the situation enough to allow a peacable solution to be brought about.

You are right, TD, about US war crimes! That's why JN is starting to say Americans are evil. I don't believe 280 million peoplecan all be evil - but their foreigh policy is another matter...

"The US blames Osama Bin Laden and the El Quaida and the Taleban. They blame the US. The Palestinians blame the Israelis. The Israelis blame the Palestinians."
I am frustrating myself listening to talkback, a very RW host.. he refuses to listen to anyone trying to put any shadow of a Palestinian point of view .. he says they're anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli, he's just feeling threatened. (He has an ex-CIA (if that's possible)Jewish American brother-in-law). He says (the talkback host) that CBS News is left-leaning (!), and that no children have died in Iraq due to sanctions, it's all Saddam's lie!
Point is, people like this lunatic, are a clear and present danger, yet I don't believe in censorship. The only antidote to the Rush Limbaughs and Leighton Smiths of this world, is knowledge, education and the disemmination as widely as possible of *true* information as to *why* everyone blames everyone else!

This is true. Anyone who rants rubbish like this should be challenged. How ironic that the extreme-right now always side with the Jewish Israelis .

I personally think Arafat has not done enough to crack-down on Hammas and the other Palestinian terrorist groups, who I feel should be cracked down on hard. However, the Israeli response has been appalling. People forget that the current Israeli government is an extremist one and that what they have perpetrated in the name of defence is terrorism carried out legally and state sanctioned. I was pleased when the Bush administration took a tougher line with Israel. I am angry that they are softening it again.

I'm beginning to think that a foreign, maybe US-lead, coalition should enter Palestine and Israel and make these two knuckle-headed nations talk peace or talk permanent UN presence. As far as I'm concerned, both sides have acted like a bunch of babies and deserve to be treated as such

Even the present US administration will find it difficult to bomb one country in the name of fighting terrorism and then turn around and condemn another for appering to do the same.

Would Isreal respond in such manner if the US wasn't bombing Afghanistan?

Are the Palestinians really that naiive to think that Isreal would not respond in this manner?

You're right! They are behaving like little kids trying to provoke aech other; each knowing what the response will be. It's so sad to watch...

Autist, no one ever said the solution will be simple.

Part of the problem I feel is that everyone is looking for a simple solution. And bombing someone who does not listen to you often appears to be the most simple, effective and hence logical solution to many people.

A distinction needs to be made however, between people who can affect a change and those who cannot. I would argue (as I tend to do ) that people in the 1st world have a greater potential of affecting a change: we have access to more resources in the way of money and communication tools that enables ditribution of ideas and arguments to a greater population. Above all we have a greater freedom for free speech (despite the efforts of the present US administration to limit civil liberties).

This is not something that we should use as an excuse to bask in the glory of our own greatness, as many people tend to do; waving flags in the process. This is something that can be used encourage people to come up with peaceful solutions to real problems.

Hi Perium,

"Oh, I'll commend the humanist who says that life is more important than any political goal and that violence is evil, but on the other hand I would ask you what good your principles would do you if you were dead. Principles and morals are for the living, and it is the duty of a soldier to fight for your right to have those principles."

Not trying to start an argument here, but this same idea applies to soldiers. What good are principles to the soldier who knowingly gives his life in service to his country? I think the idea in both cases, a soldier who fights and dies for honor or a pacifist who puts up no defense against violent attack, is that both would rather die for their ideals than live in shame. The soldier would be ashamed that he had not fought for his country. The pacifist would be ashamed that he had resorted to violence.

I think I see what you're saying, that pacifism seems like a weird thing to die for. But soldiers sacrifice themselves in similar ways, knowing they will die.

Zagreb,

"I'm beginning to think that a foreign, maybe US-lead, coalition should enter Palestine and Israel and make these two knuckle-headed nations talk peace or talk permanent UN presence."

Good one! I wonder what the reaction around the world would be if we saw headlines like those a few weeks ago, "Colin Powell outlines what the new Afghan government will be like." Holding meetings in neighboring countries to describe the government that we're going to install there. How about "Sec of State Powell names his choices for new leadership of Israel and Palestine" after we help rebels from among them to wipe out current distasteful govts.

No, that's not quite how it works. The US is supporting any big country who calls their dissidents or secessionist groups "terrorists" -- big India versus little Pakistan in Kashmir, big Russia versus little Chechnya, big Israel versus little occupied Palestine, big China cracking down on little Muslim minority groups in their Western provinces.

Neugen Amoeba,

Simple solutions?
I cannot see how after all of our foreign policy assets have been exhausted, and we commit troops that it is still in your mind a simple solution.

I still resent the fact that you call a soldier stupid. It shows your ignorance/refusal to see anything other than the way you want. Just because you hold yourself to a 'higher' standard that supports peace in all forms does not mean that the other side will play the same way. It doesn't work like that unfortunately. And a soldier will fight to give you the right to disagree. How is that not noble? In fact, while he's fighting it gives you the peace seeker more time to find another solution to end the war.

Zagreb,

I'll agree with you there. The person who suits for peace and the person who fights to protect their nation are both soldiers....they just use different weapons.

Which is more effective?

I'd say neither is more effective than the other. Generally both are used at the same to time, and that IS effective.

Crap I used the wrong name there...I meant to say Diedzob not Zagreb.

Sorry about that. I really wish there was a way to see all of the posts on the same screen as your replies instead of just one.

(sheepish)

Della.

Just to clarify: I don´t think 280 americans are evil, but their government sure is.So i think we agree on that one.

T´m.. D...