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

Sickened by the bombs in Istanbul, sad about the dead and injured, sicked once more by the response of Bush and Blair to the bombs, and very scared about the future.

I can't believe what I've heard coming out of the mouths of those two today. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if it weren't for the invasion of Iraq, the two bombs today and the two bombs last week in Istanbul would not have been detonated. I'm disgusted to hear both Bush and Blair state that they will not budge on their principles and their fight, and that they will fight back every bit as strongly as we know that the terrorist organisations will.

Of course when you say that you will fight back, what you mean is the grunts who joined the army/navy/air force, most of whom never figured that they'd see active service.

The bombs in Turkey are a direct result of the aggression shown in the invasion of Iraq. Of that there can be no doubt at all.

Tony Blair says "Our response is not to flinch or give way or concede one inch. We stand absolutely firm until this job is done." I'm sure that he can't possibly be unaware of the fact that the people who set off these bombs feel exactly the same. The more that the alliance fights, the more the extremists will do just the same. One would have thought that having lived through 30 years of IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, Tony Blair would understand that many, many people are going to die in the coming years as a direct result of sending troops into Iraq. Ken Livingstone was vilified in the 80s for suggesting that the British government should talk to the IRA and try to reason with them. 10 years later that was precisely what brought the Northern Ireland troubles to some sort of an end.

Innocent people are going to die, not just in the Middle East, but in the UK, in the US, in Turkey, and in many other countries around the world. That's why I'm very scared. This is going to be a global campaign. The first truly global war, the first global terrorist war. Not a war confined to the military, not a war confined to one place. Anyone reading this is a potential target, some more than others. If you live in certain countries, if you live in certain cities, you now stand a pretty good chance of being killed or injured.

I'd say that if you live in the UK, and particularly if you're in London you might have a better chance than most others of survival - the police and other authorities there have had plenty of practice preventing attacks by terrorists. If you're in the US you should be a little more affraid. I'm in Bush's former home town - I'm very worried.

In the words of Jack Straw today, "Who knows where next?"

God Bless and Help us all.

Sickened, sad, and scared too.

God and Godess if your there, speak up loudly and clearly to all.




Perhaps Slooooooowly too while your at it

Oh yeah and carry a big stick just in case you need to poke someone to get them to listen!

You still do miracles?

I would be concerned about attacks on Bush and Cheney
and their families. Perhaps other high government officials
would be targets as well. If we hadn't gone into Iraq
and killed Saddam's sons, Saddam would not have as much
of a reason to retaliate. It's personal now. What do the
American people think when someone kills their president?
And what about the 20-year pattern of U.S. presidential
deaths in office (or near-deaths in the case of the Hinckley
shooting of Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980)?

In 1900, McKinley was elected; he died in office.
In 1920, Harding was elected; he died in office.
In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected; he died in office,
though not in that specific term.
In 1960, John Kennedy was elected; he died in office.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected; he narrowly survived
an assassination attempt.

Is the pattern broken, or was it just misunderstood,
or was it all just coincidental?
This is important, because George W. Bush was elected in 2000.
Will he die in office? If so, how badly will the U.S.
be thrown into turmoil?

Yeah, scared is appropriate, Gosho. I'm that way, too.
As for sad, I don't think I stopped being sad in the aftermath
of 9/11/2001.

Just my two cents' worth.

Wow! I have never noticed that pattern before, really?
Every 20 years?

This is the anniversary week of John Kennedys death (my Dad too)
It still takes my breath away to remember it.

They have a special on tonight about the *real conspiracy story*
I thought I'd watch it to see what they have to say it is, this time.

I remember what I was doing when President
Kennedy was shot. I was in a school assembly.
The Superintendant of Schools interrupted the
program to announce that the President had
been shot. The program resumed. A while later,
he interrupted it again to say that the President
was dead. People were in shock.

Same here, I was in grade school and it was just after a bombing raid drill we had that day.

I was probably pondering which dolly to play with next ...

ABC did the Kennedy assasination special tonight.
I feel asleep through the middledarn.

They presented the parts I saw (most of it)purely as an arguement against the theories of Oliver Stone. They kept saying millions believe his movie version because they watched it and now conspiracy theory is in their blood.

Not a lot of credit given for independant thought or opinions not of Stones or the Governments. There are *other* conspiracy theories besides O. Stones!

There is a company here that does computer regenerations of situations. Court cases - Oklahoma City bombing, 9-11 and other events.

They showed their version to explain why Stone is wrong. They put in what they know for sure then "feathered" the rest of the details in (their words). I have wondered about the ability to change what people *think they saw* through this technology as well as movies. As far as being allowed in court, there was some dispute over that but it is used. Z-axis is the award winning animator.

*birds of a feather flock tgether* comes to mind
Has Oliver made a new movie or does he have plans to?
He has been quiet lately

" I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if it weren't for the invasion of Iraq, the two bombs today and the two bombs last week in Istanbul would not have been detonated"

I'm certainly sickened, sad and scared, but not for the same reasons. Firstly, Saddam Hussain slaughtered hundreds and thousands of Muslims, but al-Qaeda did not attack him then. Secondly, it was only when Clinton had managed to broker the peace agreement in the Middle East that al-Qaeda launched a major attack against the US. Thirdly, the UK was a target well before all all this blew up: the Houses of Parliament were targeted around 9/11 but the attack failed.

al-Qaeda attack the West simply because we are democratic and secular, also because we had the temerity to set foot in Saudi Arabia duing the first Gulf War. There is no reasoning with mediaeval bigots: they do what they see fit because they believe they have a moral right to do so. In that way, they are not better than us.

To US Americans, Britons, Spaniards, and Italians reading this: Please don't re-elect your current political boss. I can't demand it, but I can ask for it. That's the most democratic and effective response. The world will become a safer place eventually.

"There is no reasoning with mediaeval bigots: they do what they see fit because they believe they have a moral right to do so. In that way, they are not better than us."

When one hears Bush constantly banging on about freedom and democracy, I think of him as nothing less than a missionary, bent on bringing his beliefs to others whether they want them or not. He wants to bring *his* freedom and *his* democracy, ignoring the fact that some people may not want a secular (or maybe a Christian) state.

Furthermore - and this is where I can't be accurate because I wasn't paying attention to the tv at the time - I heard one of the terrible twosome yesterday say something along the lines of 'When we're done with the Middle East we're going around the world.' (there's that missionary zeal again). I've a feeling it was, surprisingly, Blair. Surprisingly because a) Blair has so far been the more sensible of the two, and b) From the outset he said that the invasion of Iraq was not about regime change. If he had ever admitted that British troops were sent to Iraq purely to bring down the leader of a sovereign nation, no matter how odious that leader, there'd have been riots on the streets of the UK so bad that martial law would have to be imposed.

There are countries all around the globe where human rights are being abused and witheld every bit as much as they were under Saddam - Burma, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia to name but a few. I doubt that US or UK troops will be going into any of those however. Bush and Blair wouldn't dare do that... would they?

I thought we were talking about why UK interests in Turkey got bombed, weren't we? That's what I was talking about anyway, and that's why I disagreed with your interpretation of the motives of the bombers. I believe that the bombers have *always* wanted to strike against democratic and secular regimes *way* before the invasion of Iraq, mainly because they hate the idea of freedom of worship and of choosing one's own leaders. I'm not excusing Bush's questionable motives, but I don't see why we should allow others to use our actions as a convenient stick to beat us with.

I'm quite happy with the idea of 'bringing down the leader of a sovereign nation' where the main purpose of that sovereignty is to function as a dictator's charter. Sovereignty isn't an end in itself, merely a mechanism employed to protect certain interests of a country, whether they be the interests of the people involved (good) or the tyrants who run the country for their own benefit (bad). What of the sovereignty of the UK, had the 9/11 plot succeeded in full?

Both sides seem to think they are right.

I understood that part of the Muslim Radical hate for the U.S. and Democracy is, oh, I dunno... all the sex and lack of decency and discipline portrayed and celebrated in our pop cultures.

Blame the media, and how we portray-- and choose to portray-- different cultures. The sad thing is that we are more alike than we are different. The way I see it, it's the dirty rotten people who are a) aggressive or b) aggressive AND officially in power who c) malrepresent many of the citizens of the countries entangled in today's current heartbreaking conflict. Most of us just want to get on with our lives and take care of our friends and families. Honestly... how many of us really seek to affect and change the world? We don't want to stir things up, or maybe most of us simply don't want to do anything.

For the most part, it's only Saddam and terrorist regimes who wanted this violence. It's only the freaking President and Prime Minister who wanted this war. Those two sides... argh.... I really should do my obligatory, stupid, retarded homework right now. You know... care about my little self right now, and forget about the rest of the world.

> Most of us just want to get on with our lives and take care of our friends and families. Honestly... how many of us really seek to affect and change the world?

Why do I get the feeling that "regular" folks like us have been saying this for millenia?

Saddam may have lost his official position, but he is
still out there somewhere. And so, apparently, is Osama
bin Laden. Al Qaeda has not been destroyed. If anything,
the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is
likely to produce more volunteers for Al Qaeda because
the Middle East has been invaded by foreigners. If Russia
or China or Brazil sent troops to seize control of the
U.S., we Americans would get up in arms ourselves.

If I am surprised by anything, it is that there hasn't been
*more* violence so far.

The Middle East is a unique place.
If it's not Western in its mores, so what?
Once the oil runs out, what will they have left?

(Sorry if I seem to have more questions than answers.
I've been running an answer deficit for a while now. _

The bombing of UK interests in Turkey is just one of the reasons for putting my thoughts down in post 1 Felonious. The bombs last week were set off either by the same people or by people with the same motivations. These bombs will be far from the last we see and I doubt that they'll be confined to the Middle East. They've started with Turkey as it's nearby and a secular Muslim country (for want of a better way of describing it).

I agree with you that the bombers have been around a good while and have an intense religious zeal - even more than than that of President Bush. I wholeheartedly believe though that the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq has been exactly the kind of catalyst they were looking for to take their mission worldwide. The attacks of September 2001 had exactly the effect on the American administration that they were looking for - the aggression shown by (including - and mostly - but not limited to) America has given them what they consider a moral right to 'fight back', which is just what the Americans think they have. See what I mean? It's immovable object and irresistable force. It's supposed to be an unanswerable question, what happens when one meets the other. There is an answer to it - both are destroyed.

By invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and by his manner, GW has IMO done nothing but fuel their zeal. I still maintain that however repugnant a leader or a regime is, however strongly you feel compassion for the people being tortured and killed by that regime, you don't send troops across a border unless that country first attacks you or shows a clear, unequivocal and imminent threat. Here's why:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

'A Man For All Seasons' - Robert Bolt

You may have seen me post that quote in other conversations and at one point on my PS. It's a very powerful quote and sums up my feelings on why you do or don't do certain things. Because he initiated a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, Bush no longer has a moral or legal leg to stand on. He won't believe that, the bombers will use it against any one of us. The moment you do anything other than defend yourself you lose all standing should you ever have to answer for your actions.

Yes, I see where you're coming from on this. I am glad that we have people like you around to act as a voice of caution. I also agree that the Bolt quote (from probably my favourite play of all time) has a lot of resonance with today's uncertain political climate. I tend to view the whole issue as an excuse for the people in charge of the bombers, rather than a catalyst. Why Turkey? Because it's a secular nation inhabited by Muslims and moving towards the kind of liberal democracy we tend to think is good. Why Britain? Because we are a secular, democratic Western nation. Both I suspect have been in the firing line for a while before all this.

If however you are going to get a young man or woman to kill themselves for a cause, you'd better make sure that they believe in that cause. I believe that the suicide bombers who perpetrate these outrages do so becauase they believe they are striking a blow on behalf of the people of Iraq who have been invaded by the infidel. Whereas the agenda of the people in charge of al-Qaeda is rather different: Islamic revolution in the Middle East, and wider if possible. The bombers are pawns in a rather complex game.

My favourite quote from a Man for All Seasons: "Richard, it profits a man nothing to trade his soul for the whole world, but for Wales ..."

Best wishes,
FM

This is a very classy thread.

Bless you all.

I figured that you and I are pretty much on the same page regarding the current situaton FM. I'm sure that many would see me in the same light as Chamberlain, waving a bit of paper and preaching appeasement. Not so. Many may also believe that going in first would minimise the number of deaths - how many would *not* have died if we'd gone into Germany in 1939 instead of waiting for them to invade Poland and then sitting around doing almost nothing during the Phoney War? How different would the Middle East be today without the holocaust? Would the state of Israel now be in existence?

This situation is much, much different. Until recently most wars have been between nations and between armies. Now we're dealing with militarised groups of people who often have no allegiance to one country. Very dangerous.

And yes - Wales. I like that quote too, although it doesn't sit quite so well with my friend Pete who was born and grew up in a little village called Gelli Gaer not far from Merthyr Tydfil.