Journal Entries
Random Riddles
Posted Dec 7, 2001
Q: What's the difference between a crocodile ?
A: The greener it is, the swimmier it gets.
Discuss this Journal entry [2]
Latest reply: Dec 7, 2001
Random thoughts
Posted Oct 29, 2001
After last month I am no longer a hippy in any sense of the word. All that remains now is being a pacifist...
Discuss this Journal entry [8]
Latest reply: Oct 29, 2001
Sorry, PC-troubles
Posted Oct 9, 2001
I will not be online much until at least friday october 12 due to PC-problems. Recently switched over to Win2000 and waddayaknow ? ISDN gave up on me...
TM.
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Oct 9, 2001
Welcome to the 21st century
Posted Sep 21, 2001
To be honest I really don't know how to respond to the events of the last few days. I can't seem to get a proper word in on the already ongoing threads because I'm not really very rational about this and a lot of people in the threads are unbelievably rational(relatively speaking). For this I applaud you, but I can't do it. Every time I stumble upon a more or less 'rational' discussion I hear "Unknown number of casualties" in the back of my head and I see this :
[pressrelease]
Partial list of those killed in Tuesday's attacks :
-- Christine Hanson, 2, Massachusetts.
[/pressrelease]
To put it mildly : I am p*ss*d off like you wouldn't believe.
Yes, that's right : I am a lifelong pacifist who is really mad as H*ll. If they can provoke that response from me, then let the responsible idiots be extremely afraid of what the U.S.A. is going to do next.
IMO what happened on tuesday is the start of something entirely new. I am not talking about the retaliation that will undoubtedly follow at some time or another. I'm talking about the fact that the rules of warfare have now radically changed.
For years I have been critical of any aggression of one state or group against another. Even the U.S.A. could count on a critical word from me(for whatever that is worth by the way), if they used their military power. I did not gloat when Iraq was bombed, I did not agree every time that Israel bombed the westbank, and neither did I applaud the use of violence by *any* terrorist-group, left- or right-wing, religious or not. I opposed Neutron-bombs in Europe and in those days I even used to write the odd protest-song about it.
But the rules were simple : a state, especially the USA, would retaliate whenever they were attacked. And have a way out to make it possible to say "O.K. we have responded. This was it. We have achieved our 'goal'".
This is now history. The most stupid thing that anyone could have done just happened. A target was picked that has no direct military value whatsoever but instead held *tens of thousands* of civilians.
The ONE reason that the U.S.A. had to limit their response was the opinion of reasonable people in the western world. But what do I say to the americans now when they decide to bomb Afghanistan, Iraq or whatever country ? You are being uncivilized ? Not really. Not anymore. No one has a valid response any longer. The U.S.A. will simply point at the New York skyline and say : "Look mommy, no more Twin Towers".
This was not a terrorist act, this was indeed an act of war. As far as I know an unprovoked attack directly aimed at the heart of a nation is an act of war. And nothing else.
What makes me the most angry is that I now have no arguments left to defend 'a moderate stance'. I can't, because I keep hearing ""Unknown number of casualties" in the back of my head and I see :
Partial list of those killed in Tuesday's attacks :
-- Christine Hanson, 2, Massachusetts.
TM.
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Sep 21, 2001
Current affairs and Von Clausewitz
Posted Sep 20, 2001
After Von Clausewitz stated(about two centuries ago) that there was no distinction to be made between civilians and military personell in war, and after several very bloody wars had been fought, the world in general realized that giving up this distinction would lead to total chaos. People and nations were deterred by the fact that such a doctrine would lead to total anarchy.
The concensus therefor was that "Only nations declare war on other nations"(free translation). This of course was not the case(Sarajevo 1914, etcetera), but is was a leading principle that could at least be used as a basic premise for defining war. This premisse has now been obliterated. If an act of war can be defined without the involvement of another state(as the U.S.A. has now done - with Europe following their lead), then anyone can start a war from now on. Of course this goes for Osama Bin Laden, but it also applies to the kid next door bearing a grudge...
Of course Von Clausewitz' Principles of War were adopted by every terrorist group in the world years ago. You cannot fight a terrorist war otherwise. The prime goal of terror is to sow fear in the hearts of the civilian population.
Now the U.S.A. has implicitly decided to embrace Von Clausewitz' doctrine. This means the control over global affairs is no longer solely in the hands of a nation(s) but also in the hands of private persons like for instance Bin Laden, those idiots in Waco and Tokyo, etcetera.
Where we used to "need" a nation to go completely ballistic before war became likely or inevitable, this can now be any person with a grudge and the financial and/or military means to take action. And that is even more dangerous than the situation we have faced for so many years so far.
You can influence a nation up to a certain level, but you cannot influence a single private person.
The times they are a changing, as mister B. Dylan sang years ago. This however is a return to the Dark Ages. And everybody who paid attention in history-class, or reads a book sometimes, knows that those times were "somewhat less civilized". Do people really want to go back to the days of the Crusades ?
TM.
"Blood on the windows
Millions of ordinary people are there
They gaze at the scenery
They act as if it is perfectly clear
Take a look at that mountain
Take a look at the beautiful river of blood
Now see what you've gone and done..."
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Sep 20, 2001
TowelMaster
Researcher U45152
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."