Why we need conspiracy theories
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1561000/1561199.stm
as you say, PDM...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1561000/1561199.stm
as you say, PDM...
A
Anonymous
Guest
Interesting article
I've read the BBC article, and it talks a lot of sense, although I note the assumption that _none_ of the various theories are true, and that anybody who believes in them must have unspoken psychological motives for doing so. Other than that, I go along with what they say: paradoxically, conspiracy theories make us feel safer, because we can focus our suspicions against "the outsiders" rather than recognise that the guy sitting next to us on the bus might be just as dangerous. I think this was the assumption at work in the Oklahoma City bombing, with everybody anxious to blame anonymous "terrorists", when actually it was all-American boy Timothy McVeigh.
That said, in five years time expect to see the shelves in the "weird" section of your local bookshop sagging under dodgy tomes purporting to tell the "true" story of September 11, 2001. I suspect that story about Ariel Sharon and the Israelis working at the WTC will resurface in one form or another in the future. (Concidentally, it ties in with my own pet (read ridiculous) theory about the Middle East, for which this is neither the time nor the place).
I've read the BBC article, and it talks a lot of sense, although I note the assumption that _none_ of the various theories are true, and that anybody who believes in them must have unspoken psychological motives for doing so. Other than that, I go along with what they say: paradoxically, conspiracy theories make us feel safer, because we can focus our suspicions against "the outsiders" rather than recognise that the guy sitting next to us on the bus might be just as dangerous. I think this was the assumption at work in the Oklahoma City bombing, with everybody anxious to blame anonymous "terrorists", when actually it was all-American boy Timothy McVeigh.
That said, in five years time expect to see the shelves in the "weird" section of your local bookshop sagging under dodgy tomes purporting to tell the "true" story of September 11, 2001. I suspect that story about Ariel Sharon and the Israelis working at the WTC will resurface in one form or another in the future. (Concidentally, it ties in with my own pet (read ridiculous) theory about the Middle East, for which this is neither the time nor the place).
you own theories confirmed?
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=593
also, the suggestion that all 'conspiracy theorists' - ie. anyone who questions the mass media orthodoxy - are deluded is somewhat frightening, as is the redefinition of the word 'terrorist' in recent british law (it now means basically anyone who uses alternate methods to the 'democratic process' eg. hackers, protesters, GM crop pullers, anarchists, underground anti-capitalist organisations etc.).
I'm sure that someone (a MP) recently said that compulsary security cards where, 'hardly 1984'. What is? Surveilance, curtailing of civil liberties (as advocated by so-called liberal commentators 'to ensure the continuity of freedom' or some such toss), quashed democratic demonstrations, the arrest of people distributing leaflets about the evils of McDonalds?
I'm going to remain a conspiracy theorist until I'm given evidence that can explain the presence of Kissinger in talks with Milosovic before the Kosova War.
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=593
also, the suggestion that all 'conspiracy theorists' - ie. anyone who questions the mass media orthodoxy - are deluded is somewhat frightening, as is the redefinition of the word 'terrorist' in recent british law (it now means basically anyone who uses alternate methods to the 'democratic process' eg. hackers, protesters, GM crop pullers, anarchists, underground anti-capitalist organisations etc.).
I'm sure that someone (a MP) recently said that compulsary security cards where, 'hardly 1984'. What is? Surveilance, curtailing of civil liberties (as advocated by so-called liberal commentators 'to ensure the continuity of freedom' or some such toss), quashed democratic demonstrations, the arrest of people distributing leaflets about the evils of McDonalds?
I'm going to remain a conspiracy theorist until I'm given evidence that can explain the presence of Kissinger in talks with Milosovic before the Kosova War.
A
Anonymous
Guest
dot23 said:
Doesn't Osmada have something like 50 siblings, at least 20 of which are male? As the dealings in those kinds of deals would only take place between people of that family's standing, that one of them would have been involved in an deal with someone who is connected to Bush is hardly surprising.
Damn, that's too many "deal"s in one sentance.
true, the laws of coincidence and commerce are much intertwined, but it's still very peculiar. I just wondered whether GWB ever met OBL... wouldn't that make for a great Enquirer headline, 'GW Bush caught in drunken brawl with Saudi heir - photos inside!'
A
Anonymous
Guest
Or if he called him while negotiating the deal, and Osmada answered the phone; "I'm sorry, I don't think he's in right now. Could I take a message, and he'll get back to you...?"
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2001
- Messages
- 680
Cynicism is not Skepticism
With due respect to those involved - and I mean that sincerely - i think that some posting here have crossed the line from skepticism to cynicism...
Just as it would be inadvisable to swallow, unexamined, the assertions made by ANY government, so to is is less than desirable to become the sort of person who sees a monster under every rock, a conspiracy behind every coincidence, and so forth.... and that is coming from someone who loves a good paranoid conspiracy as much as the next FT reader...
Absent some pretty good evidence - and if it exists, I have certainly not seen it - to be willing to envision George Bush and some sinister cabal plotting the destruction of the WTC and an attack on the Pentagon, as a means of bolstering popularity, or to further some sinister international economic agenda, seems to me to indicate more about the mindset of those putting forward those ideas than it does about true skepticism. To find the US Govt to be a more credible suspect than a terrorist organization that has (or was this more framing by the US govt?) already attacked American interests, and openly declared itself to have done so, again, to me, suggests a predisposition to see the USA (or secret conspirators within the govt) as villains.
It is always dangerous to try to read how someone should react in the face of virtually unprecedented events - are they showing the "proper" level of surprise and grief on their face, etc?
Again, I offer this with respect... not to give offense. I don't believe that George Bush in particular, or the US govt in general, have spotless hands. But come on now, guys ... sometimes we have to step back, take a deep breath, and check our biases at the door... IMHO....
Shadow
With due respect to those involved - and I mean that sincerely - i think that some posting here have crossed the line from skepticism to cynicism...
Just as it would be inadvisable to swallow, unexamined, the assertions made by ANY government, so to is is less than desirable to become the sort of person who sees a monster under every rock, a conspiracy behind every coincidence, and so forth.... and that is coming from someone who loves a good paranoid conspiracy as much as the next FT reader...
Absent some pretty good evidence - and if it exists, I have certainly not seen it - to be willing to envision George Bush and some sinister cabal plotting the destruction of the WTC and an attack on the Pentagon, as a means of bolstering popularity, or to further some sinister international economic agenda, seems to me to indicate more about the mindset of those putting forward those ideas than it does about true skepticism. To find the US Govt to be a more credible suspect than a terrorist organization that has (or was this more framing by the US govt?) already attacked American interests, and openly declared itself to have done so, again, to me, suggests a predisposition to see the USA (or secret conspirators within the govt) as villains.
It is always dangerous to try to read how someone should react in the face of virtually unprecedented events - are they showing the "proper" level of surprise and grief on their face, etc?
Again, I offer this with respect... not to give offense. I don't believe that George Bush in particular, or the US govt in general, have spotless hands. But come on now, guys ... sometimes we have to step back, take a deep breath, and check our biases at the door... IMHO....
Shadow
Fair comment shadow, but from my point of view any opinion, however ludicrous, should be given the same respect as the 'answers' that come from the Miltary-Industrial complex owned media.
No I don't believe Bush has the wit to perpetrate such a grand design (one which pushes up his flagging opinion polls, distracts from impending economic collapse, and which serves the purposes of the US oil and arms industries). However, I do believe it possible that advisors, senior republican hawks and members of an international semi-cult such as the Bilderberg group, could conspire to do this awful event if they believed it served whatever long term cause/strategy they have in mind.
All I'm attempting to do, as are others, is to bring to light unusual aspects of these events, offer my opinions based on my limited knowledge of the history and issues behind this, and attempt to make sense of this confusion.
Maybe I cause offence while doing so. If this is the case I'll appologise where I believe the person offended has good grounds. Otherwise, this sort of forum provides the freedom to express views and opinions disliked by the mainstream media, and as someone who has unusual views on many matters, I'm thankful for its presence.
No I don't believe Bush has the wit to perpetrate such a grand design (one which pushes up his flagging opinion polls, distracts from impending economic collapse, and which serves the purposes of the US oil and arms industries). However, I do believe it possible that advisors, senior republican hawks and members of an international semi-cult such as the Bilderberg group, could conspire to do this awful event if they believed it served whatever long term cause/strategy they have in mind.
All I'm attempting to do, as are others, is to bring to light unusual aspects of these events, offer my opinions based on my limited knowledge of the history and issues behind this, and attempt to make sense of this confusion.
Maybe I cause offence while doing so. If this is the case I'll appologise where I believe the person offended has good grounds. Otherwise, this sort of forum provides the freedom to express views and opinions disliked by the mainstream media, and as someone who has unusual views on many matters, I'm thankful for its presence.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2001
- Messages
- 680
In truth, I hesitated to make my post because I thought, in writing, my lack of eloquence might make my comments appear more critical, or more "angry", than they were meant to be... and that might well have been the case.
In response to Dot's comments above, the vast majority of which give me no heartburn whatsoever, I do want to say this...
Dot offered this...
Fair comment shadow, but from my point of view any opinion, however ludicrous, should be given the same respect as the 'answers' that come from the Miltary-Industrial complex owned media.
Hmmm... well, Dot, that is sort of my point...I don't know that "any opinion, however ludicrous", SHOULD be given the same respect...etc"... Unless by that you mean that any opinion should be respected to the extent that it will be evaluated in light of the facts and the reasonable assumptions as we know them. I guess the "trap" here is the "reasonable assumptions" part, on which we would probably differ ..absent a stone-cold, 100% airtight case, is it equally reasonable to lay the deaths of 6K+ Americans at the feet of George Bush and the American MIC, as it is to lay it at the feet of a known terrorist group with Arabic ties, given what we now know? I don't think so..but that is just me. So while I respect anyone's right to voice their opinion, I don't think that means that every theory is equally likely to be correct, or that ever accusation or theory is equally reasonable.
What I was really driving at, however, is this..just as there are some people who believe America can do no wrong, there are those in whose eyes America can do no right... or in whose eyes, certain Americans can do no right, or in whose eyes, a seemingly simple case where Americans were victimized by one group or another almost MUST be turned into something even more sinister, with shadowy puppet masters pulling the strings. And to me, folks in those camps are no more skeptical, no more knowing, than those in the first camp... even though they certainly, to some, SEEM more "stylish", more "worldly", more "skeptical". Someone rushing to say "I am sure this was the act of foreign terrorists" is dismissed, in these circles, as a dupe, a patsy, or as hopelessly naiive... but someone rushing to point to sinister conspiracies, or to accuse the American President and his advisors of setting up the live-on-TV slaughter of 6k+ people, is seen as insightful.
I really hope this is not seen as an attack on any one poster in this thread...it really isn't. And as I said, my presence on this forum should indicate that I am not one who DOESN'T enjoy a good conspiracy yarn. I guess in this case, for me, this situation is a bit too fresh to be "fun", and I am a little concerned how readily some seem to want, in the best of spirits, to turn what, IMHO, is an attack on America and the West by terrorists into something even more horrible, a slaughtering of Americans by their own leaders -- on the basis of (unless I am missing something) extremely flimsy, whispy, vague hints and leaps of faith.
But I have said enough, and once again, looking back, this post seems far more impassioned and, perhaps, angry, than I want it to. Only laziness, of the most reprehensible kind, prevents me from deleting it and starting over...
Bottom line..sometimes a cigar is just a good smoke. And sometimes the answers ARE simple.... IMHO...
Shadow
In response to Dot's comments above, the vast majority of which give me no heartburn whatsoever, I do want to say this...
Dot offered this...
Fair comment shadow, but from my point of view any opinion, however ludicrous, should be given the same respect as the 'answers' that come from the Miltary-Industrial complex owned media.
Hmmm... well, Dot, that is sort of my point...I don't know that "any opinion, however ludicrous", SHOULD be given the same respect...etc"... Unless by that you mean that any opinion should be respected to the extent that it will be evaluated in light of the facts and the reasonable assumptions as we know them. I guess the "trap" here is the "reasonable assumptions" part, on which we would probably differ ..absent a stone-cold, 100% airtight case, is it equally reasonable to lay the deaths of 6K+ Americans at the feet of George Bush and the American MIC, as it is to lay it at the feet of a known terrorist group with Arabic ties, given what we now know? I don't think so..but that is just me. So while I respect anyone's right to voice their opinion, I don't think that means that every theory is equally likely to be correct, or that ever accusation or theory is equally reasonable.
What I was really driving at, however, is this..just as there are some people who believe America can do no wrong, there are those in whose eyes America can do no right... or in whose eyes, certain Americans can do no right, or in whose eyes, a seemingly simple case where Americans were victimized by one group or another almost MUST be turned into something even more sinister, with shadowy puppet masters pulling the strings. And to me, folks in those camps are no more skeptical, no more knowing, than those in the first camp... even though they certainly, to some, SEEM more "stylish", more "worldly", more "skeptical". Someone rushing to say "I am sure this was the act of foreign terrorists" is dismissed, in these circles, as a dupe, a patsy, or as hopelessly naiive... but someone rushing to point to sinister conspiracies, or to accuse the American President and his advisors of setting up the live-on-TV slaughter of 6k+ people, is seen as insightful.
I really hope this is not seen as an attack on any one poster in this thread...it really isn't. And as I said, my presence on this forum should indicate that I am not one who DOESN'T enjoy a good conspiracy yarn. I guess in this case, for me, this situation is a bit too fresh to be "fun", and I am a little concerned how readily some seem to want, in the best of spirits, to turn what, IMHO, is an attack on America and the West by terrorists into something even more horrible, a slaughtering of Americans by their own leaders -- on the basis of (unless I am missing something) extremely flimsy, whispy, vague hints and leaps of faith.
But I have said enough, and once again, looking back, this post seems far more impassioned and, perhaps, angry, than I want it to. Only laziness, of the most reprehensible kind, prevents me from deleting it and starting over...
Bottom line..sometimes a cigar is just a good smoke. And sometimes the answers ARE simple.... IMHO...
Shadow
A
Anonymous
Guest
Being less eloquent than yourself, Shadow, and certainly less genteel, I'd put it this way:-
Some people would speculate on the deaths of their own grannies if they thought it'd provide a good conspiracy yarn.
Shorter, though, eh?
Some people would speculate on the deaths of their own grannies if they thought it'd provide a good conspiracy yarn.
Shorter, though, eh?
I'm really interested in this "military build-up in the Middle East before Sep 11". Does anyone have any links on that, or specific references to newspaper articles (preferably Times or FT or NYT 'cos that's what my library carries).
1st off: greenrd - have you checked the first post on this thread? It's not the only news article I know about, but it's the only one I can remember
second: shadow, mr bingo - I hope I don't fall into either camp (ie. can't do worng/right) I'm just sceptical when I see so many newspapers, web sites etc displaying the same intangible information, the same anti-taleban stance, the same rhetoric, the same 'it must be bin laden - let's go and shoot him' opinions. When I read articles claiming that Israeli secret services implicate Saddam Hussein (http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=593) and the FBI find convenient evidence... well, I think there's more at play here than orignally meets the eye. Maybe I do tend to assume that strange things go on behind the scenes (rather than take things at facec value) but isn't that part of being a sceptic and a fortean?
A point I was going to make yesterday but forgot is this: Jack Straw is going to show Khatami of Iran 'evidence' which proves OBL and Al-Qaeda's involvement. Why are we not allowed to see this information? A couple of weeks ago Iran was on the US's rogue states list, and now they're sharing top secret evidence... How can bin Laden have a fair trial if the evidence has been shown to people before hand - surely that would prejudice any legal preceedings that would result if OBL was brought in by the SAS (or whoever). Even Turkey (with it's dubios human rights record) had an open trial for Abdullah Ocalan, while we in the west seem happier with the 'bomb first ask questions later' modus operandum.
second: shadow, mr bingo - I hope I don't fall into either camp (ie. can't do worng/right) I'm just sceptical when I see so many newspapers, web sites etc displaying the same intangible information, the same anti-taleban stance, the same rhetoric, the same 'it must be bin laden - let's go and shoot him' opinions. When I read articles claiming that Israeli secret services implicate Saddam Hussein (http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=593) and the FBI find convenient evidence... well, I think there's more at play here than orignally meets the eye. Maybe I do tend to assume that strange things go on behind the scenes (rather than take things at facec value) but isn't that part of being a sceptic and a fortean?
A point I was going to make yesterday but forgot is this: Jack Straw is going to show Khatami of Iran 'evidence' which proves OBL and Al-Qaeda's involvement. Why are we not allowed to see this information? A couple of weeks ago Iran was on the US's rogue states list, and now they're sharing top secret evidence... How can bin Laden have a fair trial if the evidence has been shown to people before hand - surely that would prejudice any legal preceedings that would result if OBL was brought in by the SAS (or whoever). Even Turkey (with it's dubios human rights record) had an open trial for Abdullah Ocalan, while we in the west seem happier with the 'bomb first ask questions later' modus operandum.
A
Anonymous
Guest
dot23 said:
Very true, he'll never get a fair trial. But then again, you can't try a dead man. Regardless of whether he committed the 2nd WTC 'bombing' or not, he is proven to be behind many more outrages, including the first WTC event in '93 where 6 people died. My brother's in Oman this very moment, waiting to go and kick ass. Giving the guy a fair trial is the last thing on anybody's mind, believe me.
JamesWhitehead
Piffle Prospector
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 14,201
Would Mr Bingo care to elucidate exactly what values he
believes his brother and others and fighting to protect?
believes his brother and others and fighting to protect?
well, mr B, you seem determined to start a war of words with me, as your country is to start one in the Middle East.
Isn't it strange to see the true colours of american 'demoncracy' - freedom through warfare, truth through lies and obfuscation, justice by blood.
If your brother is in Oman, I hope you're prepared for the worst - his death. Many young American men and women will be killed if the conflict escalates in the way Bush and son want, and I hope you're prepared for the consequnces. Hasn't your country learned from the past? Afghanistan is an untakeable country, Iran has declined to support these actions, Pakistan is about to dissolve into civil war, Saudi is determined to stay out of it.
Do you really think that OBL is the mastermind behind these things - what makes you so sure? Because the FBI says so? The same FBI that 'mislaid through computer error' 4000+ files relating to Oklahoma City?
So, you don't need evidence of any sort to justify entering another country, killing and bombing? Doesn't that make you the terrorist? If America uses it's military power to coerce, threaten and destabalise, isn't that exactly the aim of the terrorists? Surely you see that America has to have the moral upper hand here - if not the international coalition (if that is what it is) will crumble, and America will be left high and dry, in the middle of a military campaign it can't win.
And, call me a lilly-livered liberal if you will, but giving OBL a fair trial, in the Hague, with full involvement from Muslim countries, should be the aim of any international move to stop his terrorist network. Put him on the stand and expose his distortions of Islam, with a cross examination by muslim Clerics, and that might go some way towards preventing a new generation of people like him.
Isn't it strange to see the true colours of american 'demoncracy' - freedom through warfare, truth through lies and obfuscation, justice by blood.
If your brother is in Oman, I hope you're prepared for the worst - his death. Many young American men and women will be killed if the conflict escalates in the way Bush and son want, and I hope you're prepared for the consequnces. Hasn't your country learned from the past? Afghanistan is an untakeable country, Iran has declined to support these actions, Pakistan is about to dissolve into civil war, Saudi is determined to stay out of it.
Do you really think that OBL is the mastermind behind these things - what makes you so sure? Because the FBI says so? The same FBI that 'mislaid through computer error' 4000+ files relating to Oklahoma City?
So, you don't need evidence of any sort to justify entering another country, killing and bombing? Doesn't that make you the terrorist? If America uses it's military power to coerce, threaten and destabalise, isn't that exactly the aim of the terrorists? Surely you see that America has to have the moral upper hand here - if not the international coalition (if that is what it is) will crumble, and America will be left high and dry, in the middle of a military campaign it can't win.
And, call me a lilly-livered liberal if you will, but giving OBL a fair trial, in the Hague, with full involvement from Muslim countries, should be the aim of any international move to stop his terrorist network. Put him on the stand and expose his distortions of Islam, with a cross examination by muslim Clerics, and that might go some way towards preventing a new generation of people like him.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2001
- Messages
- 680
Sorry, but Sometimes Playing Nice Won't Cut It...
I would prefer not to turn this thread into a referendum on US foreign policy, but...
I have to say I concur with Mr Bingo here... the idea that we must combat terrorism in the same way we combat organized crime is, in my view, idealistic at best. Does that mean I want to see NO rules? No... for example, I am as concerned as the next person with not allowing basic rights in the West to be weakened TOO much, in our zeal to be safe.
However... and this topic has a depth and breadth that exceeds, in my view, the kind of dialogue we can really achieve on a message board... what we basically have here are international organizations dedicated to slaughtering Westerners, and Americans and Israelis in particular. You will not always be able to lay out the kind of case you might be able to develop against embezzlers, convenience store robbers, or even Mafia dons. They have escalated this beyond the scope of "simple crime'; they have become serious threats to the national security of (in this case) America. Not that I envision a Muslim coup anytime, but they are operating on a scale previously reserved for nations. And they should, in my view, be dealt with accordingly. The war analogy is, in my opinion, apt. When at war, we don't make it our aim to put opposing Generals and Presidents on trial. And I have no problem with that NOT being our primary aim here. IF Ben Ladin turned up in the hands of American forces, live and well, would I want him shot in the street? No...but I wouldn't waste a whole lot of time INSURING that he is taken in that condition.
Again, the issue is complex. I grant that. I want terrorists siezed domestically to stand trial, not face kangaroo courts. But when we are in the process of rooting out and destroying terrorist enclaves abroad... frankly, I would prefer to send in the Special Forces to sending in the NYPD..
Shadow
I would prefer not to turn this thread into a referendum on US foreign policy, but...
I have to say I concur with Mr Bingo here... the idea that we must combat terrorism in the same way we combat organized crime is, in my view, idealistic at best. Does that mean I want to see NO rules? No... for example, I am as concerned as the next person with not allowing basic rights in the West to be weakened TOO much, in our zeal to be safe.
However... and this topic has a depth and breadth that exceeds, in my view, the kind of dialogue we can really achieve on a message board... what we basically have here are international organizations dedicated to slaughtering Westerners, and Americans and Israelis in particular. You will not always be able to lay out the kind of case you might be able to develop against embezzlers, convenience store robbers, or even Mafia dons. They have escalated this beyond the scope of "simple crime'; they have become serious threats to the national security of (in this case) America. Not that I envision a Muslim coup anytime, but they are operating on a scale previously reserved for nations. And they should, in my view, be dealt with accordingly. The war analogy is, in my opinion, apt. When at war, we don't make it our aim to put opposing Generals and Presidents on trial. And I have no problem with that NOT being our primary aim here. IF Ben Ladin turned up in the hands of American forces, live and well, would I want him shot in the street? No...but I wouldn't waste a whole lot of time INSURING that he is taken in that condition.
Again, the issue is complex. I grant that. I want terrorists siezed domestically to stand trial, not face kangaroo courts. But when we are in the process of rooting out and destroying terrorist enclaves abroad... frankly, I would prefer to send in the Special Forces to sending in the NYPD..
Shadow
yes shadow, but in war there are rules, of a sort, and you know who you're fighting. At the moment we have a) no idea who actually organised these acts and b) whether any country implicitly or explicitly allowed them to go ahead. That is why the US is attacking Afghanistan, not becasue they're on a humanitarian mission to free the afghan people, but because a nation that imposes its might militarily needs nations to fight. It's no good trying to fight smoke.
Also, surely it is war only if it is declared. No one has yet taken responsibility for these actions, and no government has sanctioned them (as far as we know). So to say that Bush is legitimate in ordering the carpet bombing of afghan civilians (wait a few weeks...) and ousting an unpopular, but sovereign, government is stretching credibility.
I think, and it wont be popular, that we in the west are very complacent (and even complicit) when it comes to foreign deaths. In a way it sickens me to see all this blown up patriotism and bullshit about democracy, when, the year before last, over 30,000 people died in earthquakes in Turkey (including people I knew) and no one did anything about it. And, before you start banging on again Mr B, yes I know international aid came frrom many places (including Greece, startlingly) but it wasn't $150million.
Imagine if Che Guevara, or Castro, or Zapata, or Mandela, or even Gerry Adams or any of the revolutionaries who were trying to make the lot of their people better (even if through violent means) had had their countries bombed into oblivion, their people murdered and had themselves been killed by US marines. Proud america, defenders of democracy. Or is it just about money, oil and greed?
Also, surely it is war only if it is declared. No one has yet taken responsibility for these actions, and no government has sanctioned them (as far as we know). So to say that Bush is legitimate in ordering the carpet bombing of afghan civilians (wait a few weeks...) and ousting an unpopular, but sovereign, government is stretching credibility.
I think, and it wont be popular, that we in the west are very complacent (and even complicit) when it comes to foreign deaths. In a way it sickens me to see all this blown up patriotism and bullshit about democracy, when, the year before last, over 30,000 people died in earthquakes in Turkey (including people I knew) and no one did anything about it. And, before you start banging on again Mr B, yes I know international aid came frrom many places (including Greece, startlingly) but it wasn't $150million.
Imagine if Che Guevara, or Castro, or Zapata, or Mandela, or even Gerry Adams or any of the revolutionaries who were trying to make the lot of their people better (even if through violent means) had had their countries bombed into oblivion, their people murdered and had themselves been killed by US marines. Proud america, defenders of democracy. Or is it just about money, oil and greed?
A
Anonymous
Guest
James Whitehead said:
Well gee, he guesses he would 'care to elucidate', James. Simply put, the values you refer to would be a) the freedom of citizens of the civilized world to go about their business without fear of being maimed and murdered as a result of cowardly terrorist attacks and b) the right of the democratic world to execute appropriate reprisals on those who have attacked its people.
Would James care to confirm if this answer is adequate for his needs? (Yeah, I quite like this sarcasm lark.)
First of all, a quick consultation of your atlas will show you that Cumbria is in fact in England, not America. Just like London. Getting your facts straight first would have saved you embarrassment and me having to trawl through much of the mis-directed irrelevances in your post.
Secondly, I am not interested in starting a war of words with you or anybody else. Instead, I am putting forward my point of view. This is a public forum and putting forwards one's view and challenging others is what it was created for. It's unfortunate, however, that you and others have chosen to respond with pointed sarcasm and personal slights. Therefore, as you will observe, I am responding in kind. (While my interest holds out, which won't be long at this rate.)
What a daft statement. Whether I am or not is irrelevant. Obviously my brother is prepared, or he wouldn't have joined the forces. Thank God for people like my brother who are willing to lay down their lives for the deserving folk of this world as well as the spineless armchair critics.
Of course, you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. It's a global consipracy. Bin Laden is actually the innocent owner of a fruit and veg shop in Bradford. What a disgraceful show. I'll go and paint some placards immediately.
That's right, I'm the terrorist, Bin Laden's misunderstood, the rest of the world are callous butchers, Americans are war-mongering savages - I think I get the gist.
1) Tens of thousands die in Britain every year from poverty-related causes. Unfortunate, but true. Does that mean we should ignore the handful that are murdered every year?
2) So nobody did anything about it? Can I ask what YOU did about it? Or did you just sit there and criticise others when the action they took didn't conform to your armchair ideals? I would genuinely like to know the example you set that allows you to dismiss the efforts of others like you do. If you can provide me with a suitable answer then I will very publicly stand corrected and apologise for my question.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,805
Just a point but...
By point "a" I gather Afghanistan is not a part of the "...civilised world...".
By point "b" I also guess that the Afghan people will have a right to come over and impliment "reprisals" against us in later years. Oh wait a minute they're not a democratic society so we can do what we like to those 'barbarians'.
This pointless cycle of violence will continue until somebody has the guts to stop it. Since I'm no genius and I don't know how to do that I'm going to sit here and let you continue.
Niles
Mr. Bingo said:
By point "a" I gather Afghanistan is not a part of the "...civilised world...".
By point "b" I also guess that the Afghan people will have a right to come over and impliment "reprisals" against us in later years. Oh wait a minute they're not a democratic society so we can do what we like to those 'barbarians'.
This pointless cycle of violence will continue until somebody has the guts to stop it. Since I'm no genius and I don't know how to do that I'm going to sit here and let you continue.
Niles
Spookdaddy
Cuckoo
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 7,963
- Location
- Midwich
Even a cursory knowledge of military history and philosophy makes it apparent that, apart from having lots more ordnance than the other side, one of the most essential requirements of any army preparing for and engaging in war is clear war aims. After all if you don't know where the finish line is you don't know when to stop and the lack of a precise goal can be an incredible drain on morale. It strikes me that despite all the bluster not one single politician or military leader and certainly no-one on this thread has stated what precisely these aims should be. And no, the “defeat of terrorism” is way too vague to count although it’s a nice idea but then so is the end of world poverty and a cure for cancer.
Okay so tomorrow some genius invents a missile so smart that it automatically targets terrorists and those who nurture them and then lights the fuses on a couple of dozen.
Oh dear.
Well maybe one terminates Bin Laden but what about the others - Ouch, there goes the School of the Americas, Fort Benning, Georgia and some neo-nazi compounds at Hayden Lake, Idaho. Half of West and East Belfast go up in a puff of smoke. Pardubice in Czechoslovakia (home of Semtex) experiences a particularly spectacular fireworks display and an awful lot of agricultural suppliers selling ammonium nitrate fertiliser disappear overnight. Dear old Hereford disappears (shouldn’t have trained up those dodgy looking foreigners chaps). Lets face it, Sandhurst and Eton might not come out of this one unscathed let alone West Point.
The problem is that Terrorism is a notoriously difficult word to define to everyone’s satisfaction and until someone comes out and states precisely what their definition is and their aims are how can any of us know where we stand.
Of course September 11th was a terrorist act and of course it demands a reaction, but please - if being part of the solution is accepting the vague assertions of politicians and military leaders as a justification for all out war then for what it's worth (and I know that's not a lot under the circumstances), I'm afraid I have to remain part of the problem.
Okay so tomorrow some genius invents a missile so smart that it automatically targets terrorists and those who nurture them and then lights the fuses on a couple of dozen.
Oh dear.
Well maybe one terminates Bin Laden but what about the others - Ouch, there goes the School of the Americas, Fort Benning, Georgia and some neo-nazi compounds at Hayden Lake, Idaho. Half of West and East Belfast go up in a puff of smoke. Pardubice in Czechoslovakia (home of Semtex) experiences a particularly spectacular fireworks display and an awful lot of agricultural suppliers selling ammonium nitrate fertiliser disappear overnight. Dear old Hereford disappears (shouldn’t have trained up those dodgy looking foreigners chaps). Lets face it, Sandhurst and Eton might not come out of this one unscathed let alone West Point.
The problem is that Terrorism is a notoriously difficult word to define to everyone’s satisfaction and until someone comes out and states precisely what their definition is and their aims are how can any of us know where we stand.
Of course September 11th was a terrorist act and of course it demands a reaction, but please - if being part of the solution is accepting the vague assertions of politicians and military leaders as a justification for all out war then for what it's worth (and I know that's not a lot under the circumstances), I'm afraid I have to remain part of the problem.
A
Anonymous
Guest
dot23 said:
I think James Whitehead was right in pointing out that charity is one of the cornerstones of democracy. People can spend their money on exactly what they want, and if they chose to give it to an aid foundation such as the WTC/Pentagon tragedy, that’s their affair. Just remember that that foundation is in respect of victims of some 60 countries, not just the USA.
Arguing that that money or similar amounts could have or should have been spent by those same contributors on other issues – either the current Afghan refugee situation in Pakistan, or every disaster of a given proportion around the world in our time, is completely pointless. Do those – here, chiefly American – contributors have an obligation to provide relief in these circumstances, or is it their free and democratic right to help if they so choose?
I really don’t know where all the angst and hostility toward the United States comes from. It doesn’t seem to spring from cool, reasoned analysis. The USA is not perfect, but it is no worse (in fact not nearly as imperial in its approach) than, say, our own British Empire (“we nicked their country, but gave them cricket”) - and a hell of a lot better at its international relations than many other nations or similarly influential political/economic beasts of history. Considering the unavoidable impact it has on the world simply as a result of its economic position, it could have done a lot worse.
It’s ironic that the United States is so criticised for involving itself in the affairs of other nations, when so often it has been invited or has done so on behalf of the United Nations. It can argued (and I won’t debate the issue here) that Kuwait and the Gulf War was motivated mainly by the USA’s own interests – although we should all acknowledge that it wasn’t quite as simple as that. Somewhere in between economics and altruism, I’ll submit. Certainly, Kuwait were grateful, as were the Saudis for the protection offered from an expansionist Iraq under Saddam Hussein. How ironic that the continued ‘occupation’ of Saudi Arabia (which allows this by choice, don’t forget) appear instrumental now in Osama Bin Laden’s (a Saudi national) campaign against them expressly for that occupation.
Turn to Israel – hub of animosity in the Middle East – and its ‘propping’ up by the USA. Some say unfairly, and again I won’t debate this lengthy but separate issue. That interest, I feel, simply shoulders the responsibility to a legacy left by the leaders of our two nations and the League of Nations at the conclusion of WW2, and very possibly acts as a buffer to deeper animosities in the region that might otherwise overspill again into widespread actions of hatred or genocide.
And then, in recent times, there was Somalia, and Bosnia – both examples of UN initiatives that backfired mainly in the direction of it’s principal agent, the USA.
Why is it so generally felt that the USA is poking it’s nose into the affairs of other nations? Simply because it is the most visible and active member of that alliance. It is the single biggest contributor to the UN budget (25%, against Japan’s 17.98%, followed by Germany (9.63%), France (6.49%), Italy (5.39%), the UK (5.07%), and Russia (2.87%) – the top seven); and has been the chief military respondent to UN programmes where that presence has been required.
The next most visible is Britain, and Britain did her share in the Gulf, and in Bosnia. Why not Japan, with its next largest budget contribution? Maybe because it’s own post-war constitution prevents military actions. Same with Germany…until Bosnia. Neither have had the luxury of attracting such criticism…yet. And so little Britain chips in with its miniscule contributions, as now, and will share in similar proportion in the fallout today’s world situation.
Is it any wonder, then, that the USA cops so much flack?
It’s really a case of ‘Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t’ – as will be demonstrated in the current Afghan refugee crisis (which the Taliban had already started), the relief to which the USA will by default be contributing the largest share, and will undoubtedly be criticised for not doing more.
And the same will occur again, if ever the USA, following the 11 Sept, attacks, yells ‘To hell with it’ and backs off from its current UN obligations and other humanitarian programmes, and finds a means of satisfying its energy needs from non-Middle Eastern sources.
And as we all know - and will experience again with the new coming global recession - when America suffers, we all suffer.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Responding briefly to Niles Calder / Spook
NC - No, Afghans have exactly the same rights as ourselves. Just as did the Germans in the time of Hitler. Terrorists, on the other hand, should have no rights.
NC - If 'we' commit terrorist acts in Afghanistan then in my view, Afghanistan is certainly within its rights to declare war on us. The reason I mentioned the word 'democratic' is that otherwise we get people like bin Laden doing exactly what the hell they want.
This is not an issue of racism - I have no time for any of that crap - but it's an unfortunate fact that innocent people do get hurt in the pursuit of peace. Negotiation is only viable if both parties are willing to negotiate. Obviously, this is not the case here.
Spook - Yes, a war must have aims. Not having the required knowledge myself, I must defer to the people who are taking action when they say that their aims are clear enough to enable them to 'go to war'.
You both infer that you're not going to commit to advocating any course of action. Well, other people do not have that luxury. While you are umming and ahhing, they have to make a decision. They HAVE to commit to something. Now, they have made their decision and we have a responsiblity to support them, even if some of their tactics appear wrong or disagreeable.
NC - No, Afghans have exactly the same rights as ourselves. Just as did the Germans in the time of Hitler. Terrorists, on the other hand, should have no rights.
NC - If 'we' commit terrorist acts in Afghanistan then in my view, Afghanistan is certainly within its rights to declare war on us. The reason I mentioned the word 'democratic' is that otherwise we get people like bin Laden doing exactly what the hell they want.
This is not an issue of racism - I have no time for any of that crap - but it's an unfortunate fact that innocent people do get hurt in the pursuit of peace. Negotiation is only viable if both parties are willing to negotiate. Obviously, this is not the case here.
Spook - Yes, a war must have aims. Not having the required knowledge myself, I must defer to the people who are taking action when they say that their aims are clear enough to enable them to 'go to war'.
You both infer that you're not going to commit to advocating any course of action. Well, other people do not have that luxury. While you are umming and ahhing, they have to make a decision. They HAVE to commit to something. Now, they have made their decision and we have a responsiblity to support them, even if some of their tactics appear wrong or disagreeable.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yes, I didn't grasp dot23's reference to $150m until Hermes referred to it. Dot23, charity begins at home. Again, I will apologise once you have convinced me that it already has.
OKay Mr. B, I admit I must have had a bit of red mist not to have seen that you were in the UK - I am red with shame.
However, after that I'd like to ask who the 'deserving people' are? And I'm not spineless - just afraid of what might happen in the next few months - am I alone in that? I was thinking last night that some things I've said on these boards could be the result of my sub-conscious fears about the future, and my anger towards people could stem from that...
I don't think you've really made any effort to think independantly about these events, or read other posts on this subject - Just because I don't immediately lap up every thing Bush and Blair want us to believe about this conflict (it's causes, the real perpetrators behind it, the actual aim of the military forces, etc) doesn't mean that I've shut my mind to logic.
And what did I do about the earthquakes, I cried, and I certainly did not
However, after that I'd like to ask who the 'deserving people' are? And I'm not spineless - just afraid of what might happen in the next few months - am I alone in that? I was thinking last night that some things I've said on these boards could be the result of my sub-conscious fears about the future, and my anger towards people could stem from that...
I don't think you've really made any effort to think independantly about these events, or read other posts on this subject - Just because I don't immediately lap up every thing Bush and Blair want us to believe about this conflict (it's causes, the real perpetrators behind it, the actual aim of the military forces, etc) doesn't mean that I've shut my mind to logic.
And what did I do about the earthquakes, I cried, and I certainly did not
. Why, what did you do?
A
Anonymous
Guest
dot23 said:
Not a great deal, to be honest with you. I gave a small amount of money and helped out - all too briefly - with a fundraising event. As you infer, I could indeed have done a lot more. My point was that I didn't criticise others for how they may or may not have helped, just as I would not expect to be criticised by those who actually gave up their time and went out there to help in the relief effort.
BUT...
although I still do not agree with many of your points, I apologise for the tone of my last post. Although bluntness tends to be my style, it was rather pathetic of me to stoop to personal attacks. And besides, anyone who likes the Smiths can't be all bad.
Spookdaddy
Cuckoo
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 7,963
- Location
- Midwich
Certainly on an emotional level I don't disagree with a lot of your points Mr B but -
I think I have to disagree with the luxury of prevarication thing as well. The US has the most powerful army the biggest arsenal and the chunkiest ordnance in the world and if it talks for the next twelve months it will still have the most powerful army the biggest arsenal and the chunkiest ordnance in the world.
What you refer to as umming and ahhing a certain portly, bald, cigar smoker might have referred to as “jaw, jaw, jaw not war, war, war.”
Like I said I don't disagree with everything you've written and I don't object to military action but I find something deeply and disturbingly surreal about the richest nation in the world mobilising such huge force against one of the poorest. I mean what do you achieve by bombing a bomb-site?
Well lets face it the people who take action (normally on some poor squaddies behalf) have been telling soldiers they’ll be home by Christmas since at least the Boer War, that shell-shock isn’t an illness, that “there is not a German left in their trenches, our guns have blown them all to Hell” (one arse of a general early morning July 1916 some place called the Somme), that the Japanese can’t fly aeroplanes and would never attack Singapore from the land side, that Vietnam was a police action, that the Elite Republican Guard would fight to the last man etc. etc. bloody etc. Excuse me if I’m not entirely comfortable trusting the people who know better than me.Mr. Bingo said:
I think I have to disagree with the luxury of prevarication thing as well. The US has the most powerful army the biggest arsenal and the chunkiest ordnance in the world and if it talks for the next twelve months it will still have the most powerful army the biggest arsenal and the chunkiest ordnance in the world.
What you refer to as umming and ahhing a certain portly, bald, cigar smoker might have referred to as “jaw, jaw, jaw not war, war, war.”
Like I said I don't disagree with everything you've written and I don't object to military action but I find something deeply and disturbingly surreal about the richest nation in the world mobilising such huge force against one of the poorest. I mean what do you achieve by bombing a bomb-site?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Spook said:
Point taken. Governments all over the world have taken gross liberties with their own people and armed forces in order to pursue certain interests - I don't disagree. What I'm saying is, from a personal perspective, even though I'm aware the methods advocated by Bush do not represent perfect solutions (and the man himself is not whiter than white) they represent the best chance we've got in preventing further outrages. It would be nice if we could just find bin Laden, imprison him and that be the end of it. Unfortunately, it would make no difference.
Spook said:
Again, I agree 100% with the statement you make, but you're off down the wrong track. Of course the US military is not in any danger and of course its superiority will prevail; it's the citizens of the US, Britain, France and 1,000 other countries that are in danger. If we get 12 months down the line and nothing's been done except talk and plan, this is an open invitation for terrorists all over the world to step up their action. The message would be, "Do what you want and all we'll do is talk and bluster." Just like the cowardly IRA, terrorists would hide amongst decent people and they'd be safe from attack. If a clear message is sent quickly - even though it would necessarily involve innocent casualties - then further outrage might be avoided. Not just by bin Laden, but by others like him. Because the next attack might not involve a few hundred dead or even a few thousand... A van full of bubonic plague capsules detonated in central London... chilling. Then it would be too late. There would be no covert snatch squads and intelligence recon then. There'd be large missiles, and plenty of them.
To quote a US general speaking directly after the Pentagon 'bombing', he said, "Whoever did this officially supports a lost cause." In my view, that's the only way of looking at it. Forget about bringing one man to justice. We've already had graphic illustration that these men are only too willing to lay down their lives in pursuit of their causes. If terrorists believed they were jeapordising the very things they were fighting for then it might help them reconsider further murderous actions and deal with the situation in a more civilised manner.
It's an unfortunate fact of existance that wars are sometimes necessary, and lesser evils are perpetrated in the hope that grosser evils may be avoided. Crudely speaking, there's a line that separates civilised discussion and the pursuit of justice from the less civilised act of war. In my view, that line has just been crossed. Obviously, that view is not shared by others and in that case, I'll respect their views. But that doesn't stop me thinking they're wrong.
okay, so now we all seemed to have calmed down a bit ( me anyway )
There's a few things I'd like to add at this stage: a) some newspapers have said that it took 8 years to plan this attack (which could be arse admittedly). So the likelyhood of another major strike is unlikely, given that they must have known a muslim witch hunt would start the minute the first plane hit the first tower, and therefore keeping anything else major underwraps would be a problem.
b) all this scaremongering about ABC weapons (atomic/biological/chemical for all you non-2000ad readers!) seems out of proportion. Some people are bound to panic at a time like this ( I know I'm not immune ) but I haven't seen, or heard of, any evidence, however spurious, that Al-Qa'ida has access to ABCs.
If anyone has any info please share with the group
) There's a few things I'd like to add at this stage: a) some newspapers have said that it took 8 years to plan this attack (which could be arse admittedly). So the likelyhood of another major strike is unlikely, given that they must have known a muslim witch hunt would start the minute the first plane hit the first tower, and therefore keeping anything else major underwraps would be a problem.
b) all this scaremongering about ABC weapons (atomic/biological/chemical for all you non-2000ad readers!) seems out of proportion. Some people are bound to panic at a time like this ( I know I'm not immune ) but I haven't seen, or heard of, any evidence, however spurious, that Al-Qa'ida has access to ABCs.
If anyone has any info please share with the group
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,805
To be honest I kinda expected an ABC attack instead of this divebombing. It was obvious to those who pay attention to such things that somebody was going to try something. This caught everyone off guard.
Ironically, this Sun-Of-Starwars is a pointless waste of money. If some 'rogue' nation was to launch another attack, only an ABC one it wouldn't be delivered ballistically. No they'd sail it in to some harbour somewhere (say NYC) and detonate it without warning. Of course SoS could just be another excuse to funnel funds into other black projects.
Niles
Ironically, this Sun-Of-Starwars is a pointless waste of money. If some 'rogue' nation was to launch another attack, only an ABC one it wouldn't be delivered ballistically. No they'd sail it in to some harbour somewhere (say NYC) and detonate it without warning. Of course SoS could just be another excuse to funnel funds into other black projects.
Niles