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

Thanks Paul, one does one's best you know. One has to fight against the tide of posts in some parts of this site which are filled with 'LOL', which I'm proud to say I've never (until just then) typed.

Um, let's see, was there an underground group who secretly
plotted to undermine an imperial government in the ancient
world? Well, the early Christians come to mind. And,
come to think of it, after several centuries of effort, they
won over people's hearts and minds and ended up on top just in
time to witness the demise of the empire they had opposed.
Unfortunately, in order to rule, they had to compromise with
Emperor Constantine, who wanted a homogenized version of
Christianity so he wouldn't have to negotiate with multiple
fringe groups.

I think the Marxists started as a small, underground group, too.

I hope I'm not offending anybody by bringing in these comparisons.
The terrorists can do their work because they are experts at
maintaining secrecy, and because somebody gives them money.
If they were a large, bureacratic organization like the late
Roman Empire, or Post-1950 Russia, secrecy would be out of the
question (except for the secret police, which weren't really
secret because everybody knew they existed).

There is probably a point beyond which Al Qaeda cannot grow
without ceasing to be a secret organization. I don't know what
that point is, though.

"One has to fight against the tide of posts in some parts of this site which are filled with 'LOL', which I'm proud to say I've never (until just then) typed."

No, indeed, neither have I. This is the thread for people who don't find much to laugh out loud about, who get annoyed when pub landlords turn off the news on the bar telly, aren't Keepers or Archangels or Muses or members of some other idiotic order. This is the thread for people who wished that talk *wasn't* so cheap.

Idiotic orders, FM?

I'm supposed to be a muse, but all the good stuff
was already taken by the time I arrived at H2G2.
I'm available to be one of the Furies, if you'd prefer
that. There's certainly plenty of work for them to do
in today's world.

Well, I'm Keeper of Mondegreens, but that's only an example of h2g2-specifc cyber-squatting to prevent someone else doing something untoward with my monicker. I find all these in-jokes desparately tedious, in fact.

Furies sounds like a good idea. There's a lot to get angry about.

Anyway, to get things back on track: here's a good article which sums up my view on the matter: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1091246,00.html

"In his speech at the Banqueting House, Mr Bush revealed some signs of absorbing the force of the argument, pressed on him privately by Tony Blair, that they have to strive to address the causes of terrorism as well as its perpetrators.

As for those protesters who toppled that papier-mché Bush in Trafalgar Square, they were made to look naive. The bombers, if they could, would happily slaughter them too. It is a delusion to think that all that is needed to make the world safe is a change to the occupants of the White House and Number 10. "
*From the above link.
***************************************************
This is rather twisted to me.
Anytime the opposing sides could say the same thing while having entirely different motives but expecting an entirely different outcome we are all in troube.

YES they would have bombed anyway . Yes far more than a change in President is needed! Right! The bombs went before and after Bush. Something was going to happen in Turkey no matter where Bush was last week.

The terrorists are not of one country, they are of one thought.

What do we do about it?
If Bush and Blairs point was to change the regime, do they think that has been accomplished?
The two leaders - Osama and S Hussein still exist, and may very well still be in power.

The solution and problem is not about one or two countries or leaders. It is about ideals and the continuation or escalation of what has been for a long time.

This is why I do not understand how or why the US & UK went about a regime change or IF they accomplished it!
Why not assasinate the leaders rather than the country and it's innocents? Oh yeah, it is considered illegal, immoral. War is not though.

Wouldn't intelligence have solved a few more problems?

Why does the bottom line come down to Israel-Palestine?
How many will be sacrificed for the problems of those two countries and or Religions?
Is Israel faultess and Palestine all fault?
I think not.
They seem to share the probems and the non-solutions equally. Is is not thought the two leaders should be taken out of power!
It is not about the leaders as much as their peoples common ideals and philosophy. The area is a micro example of our world

Would those two areas have problems whether the US and UK exists?
The problem is biggger than a any one country and smaller than any one religion.

SO.....why did we bomb Iraq?
I do not understand to this day.
Who and what was ended or made better by doing so?
I do not know.
It could be the same or worse.
Unfortunately backing our bags right now would be a wrongful repeat of the past.

I think if more intelligence was/is a problem there should be no shortage of human interpeters now. They should do background checks on them though! It was unreal to have one accused of being a spie at Guantanimo

That is the other bottom line IMO.
We need to want to understand the languages and decipher the increasing piles of information. We apparantly had all the information to stop previous events but no interpeters. That has not changed! We are getting more piles of data ot more answers.

Nobody knows right now if any of the money for National Security given to the individual states actually went for any security! The money plugged huge state budget holes instead.

*Not used for language translators or general deciphering of info!!!*
Isn't anyone interested in the actual plans and speech of the enemy?

This state did not have a working emergency system to call in all areas. The enforcing departments were not able to "talk" to one another during a crisis! Columbine was a perfect example and brought the problem forward. That is where our state money will hopefully go. That will make for more security and safety daily whether at war or not.
YAY

I am sick of hearing all of this info in short black and white sound bits, repeated over and over. They are the only two colors Bush and his political people are proud of seeing. There is a new one-liner for us from time to time.

Black and white thinking and decisions to act (in my world) causes mental illness. It also causes wars, enables dictators and immoral religious leaders and terrorists. It alllows for more power and mind-information control.

You're called nieve, stupid ,or a believer of conspiracies, or a possible terrorists if you are against Bushs black and white thoughts. You are against stopping a brutal dicatator if you do not agree with how Bush has proceeded.
It's an awful Big Load of craptastic stinkin' thinkin' all around.

We are being told ( Our weekly one-liner from Bush) we are fighting a war far away from us in order to keep it from our homeland.
Does that make any sense?
Isn't that how this recent War started?

Abbi, there are so many points in your post, I can only
react to a few.

<>

That's fine with me. Some states are in desperate financial
shape, and need any help they can get, for whatever reason.

<>

I should have my head examined for even taking on this point.
Nevertheless, I will say that it is my understanding that Britain
carved out an area for a mostly Jewish homeland after the First
World War, though it was more of a protectorate than an actual
country. When Hitler demonstrated that most of Central Europe
could be quite dangerous for Jewish people to live in, there was
a migration to this area, which was organized as the state of
Israel in 1948 (the year I was born ). So, did Britain
create the state of Israel, or did a mass movement of displaced
Jews do it? I honestly don't know, except that relations between
Arabs and Westerners cooled off considerably afterwards.
Does anyone remember the days when Zsa Zsa Gabor could marry the
Aga Khan, and nobody worried about the clash of religions?
Such innocent times those were.

<<.....why did we bomb Iraq?
I do not understand to this day.>>

There are links between prominent officials in the Bush
administration and major corporations, including manfacturers
of military and infrastructure items. They make money whether
we're destroying Iraq or rebuilding it.

There *may* be a purely political reason for bombing Iraq.
Doing so illustrates to the American people that Bush is
*doing something* about ridding the world of terrorism.
No politician wants to be caught doing nothing with an
election coming up.

Thanks you picked something to respond to!

I lose it from time to time after continually reading what I think and why from the mouth of polititians.
Surely I am not alone in that but maybe.

I am glad our state money is to be spent in this way.
States have immediate problems ,I do not fault them for spending as they see fit. It shows what the priorities are - I hope.

I just want things to be called what they are.
There is too much loss of transparency (fav of news for others) *Formerely referred to as the Truth*
Impossible I am sure.

Everything but health care for elderly and children, the economy and stock market fraud are being called a national security issues.

What gives real people the feeling of security more than food, health (mental and physical),jobs, roof over their head, education and family?
That is real "homeland security" to me.

Got a lot off my chest.
*looks down at my deflated chest*
Not intending to flame.
I 'll just go simmer now
Hope something better bubbles up

An interesting piece, and an intersting reaction from abbi. It'll take me a while to digest and react to either of them, by which time we'll prolly have moved on.

However, one thing from Andrew rawnsley's piece which immediately struck a chord with with me was this:

"Armadas of aircraft carriers will not stop the suicide bomber."

It reminded of a scene from both book and the film 'Dune'. The way to get through the shields which they wear is not by force but by... not exactly stealth, by pushing slowly and carefully through the force barrier. I don't know exactly why I mention this... perhaps to show that might isn't always right, nor does it always work.

Whilst writing this I've also been reminded of a Tai-Chi Grand Master I saw on two occasions in London. The first time was at the Tai-Chi class I attended, and it was geared more toward the advanced students. The novices like myself didn't really get much from it because he was describing techniques which were way beyond our capability or understanding.

A few days later we saw him again at a Chinese centre in central London. This was more of a demonstraion kind of thing - he'd get people up from the audience (made up almost entirely of tai-Ch practitioners of one level or another) to try and knock him down or fight him. He performed a couple of feats of strength which weren't exactly feats of strength, more feats of being 'grounded'.

The point of all this is that he was a mere slip an old man - no more than 5' 6" and slightly built, but by using the principles of Tai-Chi, which are nothing to do with force and everything to do with skill and finding your opponents weaknesses ("Use the Force Luke"), he could overcome almost any opponent or danger.

I'll stop rambling now.

I heard a sound bite this morning from a Dubya speech, perhaps made over the weekend. he said... I think this is what he said, I'll have to find the piece on the NPR website, he said "...the global democratic revolution". Now I know for sure he's on a mission.

"the global democratic revolution"
Hmm I'll keep my eyes open for that one haven't heard that phrase but it does sound like his mission. I believe he said something to that effect in Australia.

There was a speech I read he gave on Demnocracy. It was suppose to be his best speech ever- said by supporters. The CSMonitor was complaining that nobody ran it so they posted a link to the whole speech. They thought it was admirable and should be heard because it would explain his actions better and he needs that.

I was not so impressed reading between the lines.
I'll get a link to it so you can see it.

Bush did give the troops a raise today. He came to our large base today which has had the most losses in this war. I was glad to see he faced them and gave then a raise.
That is a rare good word for him from me

It was played on NPR - I bet it is the same speech we are referring to.

President Bush delivers keynote address for November 6 event commemorating 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy.

http://www.ned.org
The National Endowment for Democracy

http://www.moveon.org/gore/speech2.html
A different view
By Al Gore
November 9, 2003 titled FREEDOM AND SECURITY

Sorry caps are from pasting the title from the page.

You can't force someone to adopt a democratic form
of government. Force is by its nature an authoritarian
device, and authoritarianism is not compatible with
democracy.

If Iraq adopted, democratically, the kind of government
that its citizens really wanted, the Bush administration
would very likely not want them to have it.

F. Monk posted this farther up the page. I had read it, and had meant to comment, but things got in the way....

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1091246,00.html

"There are those who suggest that these outrages are some sort of deserved 'punishment' for the West's failure to deliver a resolution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. The answer to this is to remember that al-Qaeda was plotting and executing atrocities long before the White House was occupied by George W. Bush."

particularily: "West's failure to deliver a resolution to the Israel/Palestine conflict" to which the facile response "remember that al-Qaeda was plotting and executing atrocities long before the White House was occupied by George W. Bush."

In fact, the US (the country, not the average American, just so I don't get someone who can't read jumping all over me on this and why the "West" is lumped into this particular point of blame for the root cause of 9-11, I am not sure) has been failing to deliver (or rather, undermining) Israeli/Palestinian and Israeli/Arab resolutions since long before Dubya arrived on the scene.

The "West", of course, has consistently made concessions to Israel since the partitioning of Palestine and certainly shares a goodsince the partitioning of Palestineortion of any blame. However, the Arab world has bigger issues with the US than this single issue.

Why the author has chosen to turn the reason for 9-11 as simply a hatred of George Bush, I fail to understand.

It is about as sensible as the oft-stated reason for Muslim hatred of the US as a "hatred of Freedom"....

"The "West", of course, has consistently made concessions to Israel since the partitioning of Palestine and certainly shares a goodsince the partitioning of Palestineortion of any blame. However, the Arab world has bigger issues with the US than this single issue"

Should have read "The "West", of course, has consistently made concessions to Israel since the partitioning of Palestine and certainly shares a goods portion of any blame. However, the Arab world has bigger issues with the US than this single issue."

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1172818&l=10032
Article about inconsistencies in recent Bush statements

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1125/dailyUpdate.html
Article about the Peace accord going forward on Dec 1st and it is not Bushs. Bush said he would charge them (in a loan)for the security fence

Bitterlemons.com
Is a site that does the I-P conflict but I have not been able to get in. Information from both sides.

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1666
Canadian journalists view whom says he is non-partison

*calm now*
Only links!

My standards have become so low over the years
that I don't even bother to look for inconsistencies
in Bush's (or anyone else's) speeches. This isn't
Wittgenstein we're dealing with here. Gone are the days
when we could expect great minds like those of John Adams,
Thomas Jefferson, or one of the Roosevelts to reside
in the White House. Heck, I'd be thrilled to have
*Abigail* Adams or *Eleanor* Roosevelt running things.