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

Personally, I think this makes as much sense as anything else about the war in Iraq. Maybe more:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BA590075-7765-4122-B54B-EEAA8A7A1926.htm

They make demands on us that don't exist in international law. There must be reciprocity. Those who bomb Falluja cannot argue against me bombing Los Angeles.

"If we had missiles we should have bombed LA or any other [US] city until they stopped bombing Falluja, Samarra and Ramadi,"

I don't know what to say, anhaga. Kidnapping and beheading 'financial mercenaries' is one thing. Not that I agree with it, but you can see the 'sense' of it, from their point of view. But kidnapping this woman who has been working for 30 years in Iraq to help people there - this cannot be condoned in any way or . . . oh hell, words fail me. I am sick about it, to be honest.

Frankly, if LA or any other American city was bombed - we have only Bush to blame.

And it turns out that Bush only laid waste to this country because he *knew* they had no serious way to retaliate.




az

There's absolutely no hope of any resolution in this sorry situation without a few more regime changes, and I see little chance of the first of them - I honestly believe that George Bush will still be president this time next month Bush, Blair, etc will see no point of view other than their own, and as long as they remain in power events will continue this way.

I agree, Az: snatching aid workers is reprehensible. Those who are doing the work that "normally" would have been done by the U.S. military, however . . .

But then, the U.S. Military is responsible, under international law, for reconstruction and getting the humanitarian work to the people . . .


How many of the aid workers are actually inadvertantly doing work the U.S. is supposed to be doing? How many realize?

Like I said, it makes as much sense as any other crazy thing over there. And it's all insane crap on all sides.

As far as condoning: it's that old 9/11 thing. Some people just can't accept that it is possible to recognize a person's point of view and to understand whence it derives without agreeing with that point of view or condoning it. I know you and many others are quite capable of recognizing, etc.: it's just that some, usually those with Republican sympathies, can't. To them, if you try to explain "terrorist" motivations you are somehow condoning terrorism or even "blaming the victim"

Simulpost Gosho:

Sadly, I too suspect that Bush will win once more. I also have the frightening premonition that he will win clearly and decisively, without any election irregularities.

I also agree that there need to be more regime changes. Alawi, for example, is just another Saddam in training, as near as I can figure it.

http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/[email protected]@.ee9ce8f/53

That URL doesn't want to post properly....

Alawi is a charmer

Anyone who takes a good hard look at this guy, and your blood runs cold.

Alawi started off life as a hard core Baathist. He wound up in Saddam's secret police where he became skilled in interrogation, torture and murder and was eventually assigned to overseas work, where his job was to monitor, harass and occasionally assassinate expatriate Iraqi's.

While in England, he started taking money from MI-5 and was compromised, or turned by British intelligence.

He had a falling out with Saddam, resulting in Saddam sending an assassin to his home in London, to chop him up with an axe. He survived the attack, spending a year in the hospital.

Thereafter, he peddled himself out to various intelligence agencies, particularly the British and the Americans. He was considered an invaluable source, being a former highly connected Baathist with a window into both Baathist internal politics and the secret police. Alawi has admitted to being in the employ of 16 different intelligence agencies.

He eventually wound up, like Chalabi, heading his own Iraqi expatriate political opposition group. Largely because the Americans were funding such groups, trying to culture alternatives to Saddam and create the illusion of an opposition movement outside the country (all opposition inside the country having been murdered.)

While Chalabi was seen as the untainted diplomat and politician, Alawi's potential leadership credentials were as a legbreaker, as someone connected to the existing structure who could plug back in, and as a strongman. He was one of a fairly unsavoury group of potential 'strongman leaders', including an ex-General who'd gassed the Kurds and kicked children to death.

During the 90's, with American support, Alawi's personal group organized terrorist bombings inside Iraq, blowing up civilian facilities in Bagdad. Civilians died. Saddam wasn't troubled. Luckily, Alawi and his cronies were so corrupt that only a fraction of the monies provided by the CIA actually made it into the terrorist campaign.

Alawi also tried to organize a coup against Saddam in 1996, which failed spectacularly. Rumour has it that his rival Chalabi, ratted him out to Saddam.

Still, like Chalabi, Alawi was front and centre with fabricated stories about Iraqi wmd's. In particular, his group seems to be the source of that story that Tony Blair told that Iraq could launch wmd's on 45 minutes notice.

Of course, credentials like that got him on the Iraqi Governing Council, and once Chalabi's star had fallen, Alawi as a longtime CIA man, bought and paid for spy, and all round thug made him the logical choice for 'Iraq's Thomas Jefferson.' So the American's rolled over the UN to make him President.

His first act, as President, appears to have been personally executing six suspected insurgents by shooting them in the back of the head. This story is apparently documented by witnesses, although buried by the media.

Now, personally, I figured John Ashcroft was a little nuts when he celebrated a new position by annointing himself with oil. But it seems to call for a different category of maniac nutcase to celebrate your new job by busting a few caps in people.

Alawi appears to have briefly galvanized the Iraqi public with tough talk that made him seem like a bold and resolute leader.

The subsequent actions, however, are troubling.

Alawi stated that he would and could declare martial law, a clear move towards dictatorship. This was quickly slapped down by the Americans, embarrassing him. Eventually, the dispute was massaged into "If Alawi requests martial law, we'll give it to him because he's President."

Meanwhile, he shut down Al Jazeera, apparently at American request, which made him seem like a puppet. Even if this was an independent action, it hardly makes him seem democratic.

His new Iraqi security forces appear to be returning to torture as a way of life, and Alawi has publicly stated his wishes to bring back

Mudhooks. . .?


az

Oh. Look at this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3944741.stm

Anhaga, that was old news shortly after the invasion. The Brits themselves were the first to admit that their experience in Ireland made their commanders and troops more likely to get along with the population. Every British enclave without exception has had less violence per capita and a happier populace. It has been quite clear since Vietnam that the US knows how to invade but is totally lost after that fact. Look at Canada in Afghanistan compared to the Yanks, again Canada's experience in the UN as a peace keeping force has created....well...peace! Canada's greatest single loss of life there was from US fire. I mean, don't they get it? Might =/= right? The UN makes Peace, not War? The kid with the biggest gun may win the fight but lose the battle? I fear for us all if in fact the Shrub does get back in. Can you say Nero?

You know it's old news and I know it's old news but . . .

Wait.

I guess everybody knows it's old news.


Why's it on BBC News then?







I just figure it's worth mentioning now and then. That's all.


Personally, I think Bush is going to win and the rest of us are going to lose. In the short term . . .

Oh. And I can say Nero.



But I suspect all Mr. Bush can say is Sampson

Interesting article, anhaga! I see their point of view... Martinkus was in our local paper but didn't get to say as much as he did in this link...

Thanks for the information, Mudhooks... This Alawi is a truly scary guy (as is Asscroft... did he really anoint himself with oil! Insane!)
<>
I read about this on truthout.org, but as you said, have seen nothing in the mainstream media.

Just to clarify, The thing I posted was the text of the site that the URL was for. Some people have trouble when the link is split like that.

Here's a little more detail about the Alawi story:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1155990.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/16/1089694568757.html?oneclick=true