Dating was a nightmare for me to return to after 9 years with one woman. And oh, how I complained...
I'm rather bored with the war for now. Not that the fear induced sleeplessness shows any signs of relenting of course, but I do challenge anyone to find a news story that shows a new angle on events. I have a rant formulating which I believe will give a different take on the coverage of Afghanistan but I need to let it percolate it's way through my sub-conscious for a little longer. No, today I feel the need to indulge myself and examine something utterly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I'm going to have a look at dating.
Dating is something that I am a relative newcomer to. Having met my former fiancee at age 15 and stayed with her for over 9 years, it is also something that I felt sure I had avoided and I was grateful in extremis for that. But we live in an uncertain world and so it was that I found myself stranded in a game whose rules I had a vague understanding and whose formalities and etiquette seemed alien in their complexity. Now, I don't intend to make this a rundown of my love life since splitting with my other half, so you may be asking yourself "Yeah? So what?". And that line of thought would be entirely acceptable if I were to mire myself in self-pity at my rather poor showing in the dating game. But I don't intend to do that, no not one bit of it. What I do intend to do is vent my spleen about one aspect of it; an element that one seemingly *must* understand if one wants to get anywhere (and I mean that in every sense of the phrase). I'm talking about the idea of "Not Seeming Too Keen".
Okay, before I get started I should declare an interest in attacking this particular little bugbear. After my relationship with my fiancee had ended, I met a few people whom I liked enough to want to date again. Being rather naïve with regard to dating, I was guilty of trying "Not to seem too keen". What it in fact achieved was to make me "Not seem too bright" as well as "Not capable of doing something without dithering like a prat". So in that respect perhaps my extraordinary supply of bile that I have reserved for this dating practice is a little biased.
Now if it were just me who had managed to snatch despair from the jaws of happiness then I would write it off as a personal error to be learnt from and *never* to be repeated again. But I am by no means the only one to make such a complete tit of myself in the name of making a juvenile effort at looking cool at all costs. No, not at all. In the last few months I have seen numerous friends meet somebody who they liked and could see themselves getting involved in a relationship with. In particular, I've seen one very close friend manage to consign countless potential relationships to the grave for absolutely no other reason that this bizarre idea that one shouldn't seem to keen about someone else. The routine ran something like this;
Friend goes out for a weekend's worth of merriment; friend meets up with Someone; friend is attracted to this Someone; this Someone is attracted to friend; friend and Someone spend entire evening together; friend get's back and fizzes around with excitement at having met Someone whom they really like; friend makes enquiries of mutual friends to find out what Someone thought of friend (don't ask - this friend of mine seems to know every other human being on the face of the planet...), friend invariably finds out that Someone was equally as besotted; friend forces self not to ring,text,email, or contact Someone in any way ; Someone sends non-committal message via text/email (because friend won't answer the phone in case it's Someone, and Someone has to be non-committal as Someone must also be sure "Not To Seem Too Keen"); friend get's utterly disheartened at non-committal nature of message and writes off all hope of relationship with Someone; friend does not reply to Someone; Someone assumes friend is not interested; Repeat from start.
Did I miss something? Are we still a nation of Victorian era prudes for whom showing emotion is a faux pas on the same level as paedophilia?! What happened to the idea of the UK being full of vibrant and trendy young things? The pattern that my friend seems to follow is by no means unique and I'm sure that you'll recognise it to a greater or lesser degree. And who in the name of blistering piss decided that the most surefire way to attract a potential partner was to not contact them for about a week after meeting them, and then being cool and distant when one eventually deigns to get in touch? I mean, I know that love and lust don't exactly operate logically but this strikes me as an obscene repression of ones natural feelings upon meeting someone whom one likes.
I'm sure things are different in the wonderful world of adulthood, but when I first met my fiancee I was no more capable of playing it cool and distant than I was of not having a crafty one off the wrist at least every other day (hey c'mon; I *was* 15...). Any pretence at measured and logical thought perished in the fiery inferno of the unfettered passion and unbridled lust that I felt at the mere thought of her. As such, I rang her within a few days of first meeting her, she rang back the following day and the rest (like our engagement) is history.
So what exactly changes between being a teenager and being an adult. One would think that things would be a lot more cut and dried as an adult. After all, the hormones no longer rampage round our bodies like a viagra tainted flu virus (by the time our mid twenties are upon us they are more like a mild case of the sniffles) and we don't have to endure the horrendous coyness and gangly awkwardness that is the sole preserve of the teenager in love. And yet rather than being relieved beyond words to see the back of that godawful time, we seem to be doing our very best to artificially recreate it. And we do this by obsessively "Not Seeming Very Keen".
It's not as if this could be misconstrued as an attempt to retain some of the sense of wonder that permeates every new experience of our teenage years. Christ knows, I felt as stupidly in lust with my first post-fiancee dalliance when we met as I ever had done as a teenager so what the hell possessed me (and possesses pretty much all young adults) to try and "Not Seem Too Keen"? I suppose the most obvious answer is that we are afraid of facing the ridicule of our peers. And so it seems that we are happy to think less of ourselves, to be unable to live with ourselves and the decisions that we've made, just as long as our friends don't mock us or think less of us. Perhaps we are so egotistical as to believe that every single potential partner (or even just potential shag if you want me to be cynically truthful) also doubles up as "Potential Stalker". If so then that is a pretty sad indictment of ourselves; we'd prefer to live in perpetual fear rather than let our guard down and grasp the possibility of living in happiness.
Can I really be the only single person who thinks that this Law of Dating is one of the worst ideas in the history of human nature? Or am I just an embittered and sad git who is angry at his own self-inflicted lack of success with the opposite sex? Either way, please do enlighten me as I've given up trying to make sense of the whole damn thing!
Monday, 15 October 2001
Monday, 8 October 2001
The Eve of the War
Although too alarmist in parts, I think I was pretty much on the money when I talked of how one side wanted this war to polarise the world into 2 camps. Unfortunately, I wasn't pessimistic enough in saying that only one side wanted that outcome.
So, the war has started. We all looked forward to it with an increasingly resigned sense of dread and so it is no big surprise. There remains only one main question to be answered; will this war be televised?
Jesus, am I really that jaded about the onset of what may develop into WWIII? Well, pretty much so if I'm honest. America is rather less comfortable with being at war since Sept. 11th as they now have to face the very real prospect of terrorist retaliation at any time and in any place. We as their foremost allies must face that same prospect. However, at the risk of sounding smug, we've had to live with the prospect of terrorism for 30 years and so it has caused fewer ripples here. After all, the IRA were (and still probably are to a lesser extent) funded by America for years (The terrorist group ETA must be kicking themselves for not having more Basque's in America than there are in the whole of Spain; it certainly worked a treat for the IRA). Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, as were many of the Mujahadin groups in Afghanistan. In effect we've simply swapped one US created problem for another. At least this time we know that we're not the only country who will have to push that fear of terrorism to the back of our minds in order to get on with our day. (Incidentally, what exactly is "State Sponsored Terrorism"? Does a man knock on the door of a country's embassy with an sponsorship form asking for money for little Achmed's sponsored suicide bombing?)
Anyway, after the 4 weeks of hype and building up of tension the air assaults were launched and were met with a reaction of...well, I think it was best summed up when somebody said that "...it's not as good as the Gulf War is it? I mean, there's hardly anything about it on the TV and the pictures aren't very good." All in all the effect thus far has been of a public who, having had the onset of hostilities hyped up as much as Titanic, have found that what is on their screens is more like Battlefield: Earth. Besides, the US and UK airforce's regularly drop bombs all over Iraq and those events form little more than a footnote on page 12 of the newspaper. Isn't this just a case of "Same shit, different country"?
No. No it damn well isn't. This little war-ette has the potential to become something quite remarkably frightening. Granted, it also has the possibility of fizzling out and sweeping the board at the Razzie Awards (perhaps winning the coveted titles of "Most Unjustifiably Hyped War", "War least likely to lead to Nuclear Holocaust", and "Most Welcome distraction from the Recession"). But this conflict could be the spark that polarises the world into two opposing camps, and that is something that the Gulf War never realistically threatened to do.
Seeing as I've started out with the Gulf War comparison, I may as well continue with the theme. Firstly I'll deal with my most frivolous point; the Televised War. Pretty much everybody remembers the TV coverage of the Gulf War. Entertaining wasn't it? It was like being an observer to the world's biggest video game! Coupled with the extraordinarily low amount of Allied casualties over the course of the war (the US army killed more allied soldiers than the Iraqi's...) the TV helped to reassure the West that we were still the big kids in the playground. We knew that we were winning because we could see exactly where the missiles were landing. All the missile-mounted camera's failed to do was flash up the address of the target in the corner of the screen! The TV was our friend.
I don't think it will be this time round. Afghanistan has no infrastructure worth speaking of, nor does it have much in the way of industry. Therefore, our fireworks display will be a lot less spectacular this time round (who wants to see footage of a cruise missile destroying a 4x4 with mounted machine gun when we've already seen one blowing up a Baghdad airfield?). Secondly, the ground war is not the foregone conclusion that it was in the Gulf. The Iraqi army was bombed and carpet-bombed for weeks, and they weren't exactly a credible threat to allied ground forces in the first place. The Taliban have scattered to an extent anyway and so are less vulnerable to bombing, and they will almost certainly do what they did when the USSR rolled in; disperse to the mountains and cause mayhem from there. So this time the US will have competition in the contest to see who can kill the most allied soldiers. I doubt that the TV will show the undoubtedly bloody and ferocious fighting that will be the norm after the ground war commences. It's one thing to watch a war that one has little danger of losing. It's quite another to watch, say, the aftermath of a massacre in a valley which would see almost 100 allied soldiers lying butchered whilst the Taliban guerrillas whoop victoriously in their village.
Then we have the religious angle to consider. Bin Laden claims to be acting in the best interests of Islam when he urges Moslems everywhere to rise up against the Great Satan. He's not of course, but that is by the by. He wants to see the world split into two camps; believers and infidels. There is no half way house here. You are either with him or against him (a phrase which I shall come back to later). He has also built up large-scale international support amongst the people of the Middle East simply because he opposes America. Saddam Hussein was an altogether different prospect; here was a nationalist dictator who had little or no time for religion. He didn't much care for what one's religious background, just as long as his orders were carried out. When he may a brief and desperate call for a Jihad against America and the UK he was pretty much universally ignored despite the fact that he had launched missiles against Israel (normally a pretty safe bet if one wishes to gain the support of fanatics who claim to be Moslem). Unlike Hussein, Bin Laden has a proven record for fighting in the name of Islam so who is to say that he will not become a rallying point for all of those who despise America (and there are a lot of them, make no mistake)?
When the Gulf War began, the world was pretty much united in it's support of the liberation of Kuwait (although perhaps we should ignore the fact that the only reason that they did it was to safeguard the flow of oil from the region). The same cannot be said today. Iran is schizophrenic in it's approach as it has a Prime Minister who seems to support the action against the Taliban and a Supreme Leader who wants to keep it firmly mired in it's USA-hating past (it's probably best to think of it in terms of what would happen in the UK if Blair was still PM and Thatcher was Queen; not a very pretty picture really so let us move on...). Malaysia has come out in opposition to the attacks, and the Moslems of Indonesia seem less than happy. The remaining Moslem nations who support the bombing are all lead by autocratic governments. What they say and what the people of those nations say is not necessarily the same thing. Bin Laden is doing his best to encourage support among the fanatical Islamic groups in Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. It may well turn out that those nations have to start denouncing the US and UK in order to keep their own people happy (and save their own skin of course).
Do we think that the US, UK, and whomever else have joined the party by then will simply stop? Can anyone see Bush or Blair making a broadly cheered speech where they make it clear that "...due to the opposition to this war that has sprung up among our allies, we shall withdraw from Afghanistan and rely on the UN to bring Bin Laden to justice"? Especially if they haven't captured or killed Bin Laden? It's not going to happen really, is it? And as has been said by numerous American politicians, "If you're not with us, you're against us!" (Told you I'd come back to it). So it's not beyond the realms of possibility to find a large portion of the Middle East withdrawing support from the US, which could in turn lead to them being cast in the same light as the Taliban. In other words, we could find ourselves facing a war between the Western and Moslem worlds. This is what Bin Laden wants in the first place, so you can bet he won't miss the chance to try and make it happen.
So, the war has started. We all looked forward to it with an increasingly resigned sense of dread and so it is no big surprise. There remains only one main question to be answered; will this war be televised?
Jesus, am I really that jaded about the onset of what may develop into WWIII? Well, pretty much so if I'm honest. America is rather less comfortable with being at war since Sept. 11th as they now have to face the very real prospect of terrorist retaliation at any time and in any place. We as their foremost allies must face that same prospect. However, at the risk of sounding smug, we've had to live with the prospect of terrorism for 30 years and so it has caused fewer ripples here. After all, the IRA were (and still probably are to a lesser extent) funded by America for years (The terrorist group ETA must be kicking themselves for not having more Basque's in America than there are in the whole of Spain; it certainly worked a treat for the IRA). Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, as were many of the Mujahadin groups in Afghanistan. In effect we've simply swapped one US created problem for another. At least this time we know that we're not the only country who will have to push that fear of terrorism to the back of our minds in order to get on with our day. (Incidentally, what exactly is "State Sponsored Terrorism"? Does a man knock on the door of a country's embassy with an sponsorship form asking for money for little Achmed's sponsored suicide bombing?)
Anyway, after the 4 weeks of hype and building up of tension the air assaults were launched and were met with a reaction of...well, I think it was best summed up when somebody said that "...it's not as good as the Gulf War is it? I mean, there's hardly anything about it on the TV and the pictures aren't very good." All in all the effect thus far has been of a public who, having had the onset of hostilities hyped up as much as Titanic, have found that what is on their screens is more like Battlefield: Earth. Besides, the US and UK airforce's regularly drop bombs all over Iraq and those events form little more than a footnote on page 12 of the newspaper. Isn't this just a case of "Same shit, different country"?
No. No it damn well isn't. This little war-ette has the potential to become something quite remarkably frightening. Granted, it also has the possibility of fizzling out and sweeping the board at the Razzie Awards (perhaps winning the coveted titles of "Most Unjustifiably Hyped War", "War least likely to lead to Nuclear Holocaust", and "Most Welcome distraction from the Recession"). But this conflict could be the spark that polarises the world into two opposing camps, and that is something that the Gulf War never realistically threatened to do.
Seeing as I've started out with the Gulf War comparison, I may as well continue with the theme. Firstly I'll deal with my most frivolous point; the Televised War. Pretty much everybody remembers the TV coverage of the Gulf War. Entertaining wasn't it? It was like being an observer to the world's biggest video game! Coupled with the extraordinarily low amount of Allied casualties over the course of the war (the US army killed more allied soldiers than the Iraqi's...) the TV helped to reassure the West that we were still the big kids in the playground. We knew that we were winning because we could see exactly where the missiles were landing. All the missile-mounted camera's failed to do was flash up the address of the target in the corner of the screen! The TV was our friend.
I don't think it will be this time round. Afghanistan has no infrastructure worth speaking of, nor does it have much in the way of industry. Therefore, our fireworks display will be a lot less spectacular this time round (who wants to see footage of a cruise missile destroying a 4x4 with mounted machine gun when we've already seen one blowing up a Baghdad airfield?). Secondly, the ground war is not the foregone conclusion that it was in the Gulf. The Iraqi army was bombed and carpet-bombed for weeks, and they weren't exactly a credible threat to allied ground forces in the first place. The Taliban have scattered to an extent anyway and so are less vulnerable to bombing, and they will almost certainly do what they did when the USSR rolled in; disperse to the mountains and cause mayhem from there. So this time the US will have competition in the contest to see who can kill the most allied soldiers. I doubt that the TV will show the undoubtedly bloody and ferocious fighting that will be the norm after the ground war commences. It's one thing to watch a war that one has little danger of losing. It's quite another to watch, say, the aftermath of a massacre in a valley which would see almost 100 allied soldiers lying butchered whilst the Taliban guerrillas whoop victoriously in their village.
Then we have the religious angle to consider. Bin Laden claims to be acting in the best interests of Islam when he urges Moslems everywhere to rise up against the Great Satan. He's not of course, but that is by the by. He wants to see the world split into two camps; believers and infidels. There is no half way house here. You are either with him or against him (a phrase which I shall come back to later). He has also built up large-scale international support amongst the people of the Middle East simply because he opposes America. Saddam Hussein was an altogether different prospect; here was a nationalist dictator who had little or no time for religion. He didn't much care for what one's religious background, just as long as his orders were carried out. When he may a brief and desperate call for a Jihad against America and the UK he was pretty much universally ignored despite the fact that he had launched missiles against Israel (normally a pretty safe bet if one wishes to gain the support of fanatics who claim to be Moslem). Unlike Hussein, Bin Laden has a proven record for fighting in the name of Islam so who is to say that he will not become a rallying point for all of those who despise America (and there are a lot of them, make no mistake)?
When the Gulf War began, the world was pretty much united in it's support of the liberation of Kuwait (although perhaps we should ignore the fact that the only reason that they did it was to safeguard the flow of oil from the region). The same cannot be said today. Iran is schizophrenic in it's approach as it has a Prime Minister who seems to support the action against the Taliban and a Supreme Leader who wants to keep it firmly mired in it's USA-hating past (it's probably best to think of it in terms of what would happen in the UK if Blair was still PM and Thatcher was Queen; not a very pretty picture really so let us move on...). Malaysia has come out in opposition to the attacks, and the Moslems of Indonesia seem less than happy. The remaining Moslem nations who support the bombing are all lead by autocratic governments. What they say and what the people of those nations say is not necessarily the same thing. Bin Laden is doing his best to encourage support among the fanatical Islamic groups in Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. It may well turn out that those nations have to start denouncing the US and UK in order to keep their own people happy (and save their own skin of course).
Do we think that the US, UK, and whomever else have joined the party by then will simply stop? Can anyone see Bush or Blair making a broadly cheered speech where they make it clear that "...due to the opposition to this war that has sprung up among our allies, we shall withdraw from Afghanistan and rely on the UN to bring Bin Laden to justice"? Especially if they haven't captured or killed Bin Laden? It's not going to happen really, is it? And as has been said by numerous American politicians, "If you're not with us, you're against us!" (Told you I'd come back to it). So it's not beyond the realms of possibility to find a large portion of the Middle East withdrawing support from the US, which could in turn lead to them being cast in the same light as the Taliban. In other words, we could find ourselves facing a war between the Western and Moslem worlds. This is what Bin Laden wants in the first place, so you can bet he won't miss the chance to try and make it happen.
Tuesday, 2 October 2001
9/11 Distractions
A month after 9/11, and the haze of shock was clearing from my mind. A stark and unpleasant reality now had to be faced.
Though I've tried (God knows, I've tried) to find something in the news to talk about, it always comes back to the Big Story. It's not as if I'd be short of material at the moment; Darth Tory's election to the Conservative Party leadership has the promise of being one of the most unintentionally funny moves in political history. Here is a man who physically resembles William Hague's older, less vivacious brother and, judging by some of his initial cabinet appointments, mentally resembles Margaret Thatcher's younger, less stable son. However, I shall hold to my promise to leave him alone for a while. I do so for 3 main reasons;
1: It's impossible to judge a man as a leader when he makes his debut in such interesting times.
2: He may end up driving moderate Tory's out of the Party and into the waiting LibDems and I'm worried that if I start to blather about that at length that I might jinx it.
3: I can't be bothered to talk about such an irrelevance as the Tories when there are things that are far more pertinent going on in the world.
It's not as if I'd just be limited to the political scene. After all, it's not every day that one of our Royals makes a balls up the like of which occurred last week. Okay, that's patently not true, but usually they at least have the benefit of being able to close ranks. After having seen the blatant dishonesty employed by the Production Company owned by the more pointless of his two brothers, Prince Charles is somewhat miffed. And who can blame him when the only media group to break the gentleman’s agreement not to film Prince William at University is the only one owned by a gentleman? It would seem that the upper classes could still teach the "gutter press" a thing or two about corruption and venality.
The secrecy surrounding William's University life also gives me further grounds to suspect that he will be a King whom I can admire. After all, it's only 2 years ago since the young Prince went on a week long cruise accompanied only by a dozen plump chested young lovelies. If his University career continues along the same vein as that, indeed if he just behaves like any normal 18-19 year old who finds himself away from home for the first substantial period of time in his life, then we may have a figurehead who is actually a little more representative of the British People. He already has a couple of bonus'; his Grand-dad is Greek so he'll have no trouble adjusting to the University Male diet of Kebabs. His Auntie Margaret could no doubt teach him a thing or two about binge drinking. And he only need look at his Mum's fate to develop the total mistrust of Moslems that this country will no doubt see over the coming months....
Also, if one were to, for example, wish to talk about Northern Ireland and the imminent end of the Northern Irish Assembly followed closely by the end of the cease-fire, one would have no shortage of reports coming from the province to draw upon. A group known as the Red Hand Defenders over the weekend murdered a journalist. Leaving aside the fact that their name immediately brings to mind the US children’s TV programme "The Red Hand Gang" ( a programme that sticks in my mind for 2 reasons; the theme tune which sort of went La la la la la, La La-la, Lalalalalalalala-La and so on and so forth, and the unfortunately named James Bond III whom if memory serves played the gangly black boy in the show.) this is a very serious and bad thing. The RHD is a cover name for the main Protestant groups the UDA et al. Aside from showcasing their obvious love of acronyms, the incident shows that the loyalists are not willing to stick to the cease-fire when it doesn't suit them. Which tends to suggest that the republicans won't. When coupled with the fact that Sinn Fein are on the cusp of being booted out of the NI assembly (whether it gets suspended or not) one can see that perhaps this New War on Terrorism will not just be confined to distant, mountainous area of land full of bugger all.
I don't have to just look at domestic affairs either. Former US President Clinton has found himself disbarred from the Supreme Court as part of the plea bargain that was struck during the Lewinsky scandal. This allows me to rejoice in the news that I now have something in common with Bill Clinton (apart of course from having gotten a blow job off somebody that he really shouldn't have), and that is information that I intend to use just as soon as I head down to Oxford to "accidentally" bump into his daughter (who I am thankful to say has changed an awful lot since her Dad first took office. She's still not as nice as Dubya's delightful daughters are though...).
Yet such is the level of activity in the news that I would not even need to confine myself to the ruling classes unless I desired to do so. Yesterday saw the father and stepmother of 6 year old Lauren Wright convicted of her manslaughter after having treated her to 18 months of sustained abuse. What is even more horrendous about the case is that it has provided the media with a bona fide Wicked Stepmother. Lauren's father was culpable for her death in that he turned a blind eye to what was going on (and so I now understand just what is meant by "blinded by love"). And what was going on? Oh, the usual sort of things; beating, starvation, neglect, torture. And you know what the worst thing about it is? It really is "the usual sort of thing". I mean for God's sake! I have a healthy attitude to small children in that I hate them and don't want to spend any time in their company. But to systematically beat and torture a child to death...I know I am of a liberal nature and have repeatedly stated that I believe in the benefits of rehabilitation for offenders, but when one hears of cases like this one can see exactly why the hang-em-and-flog-em brigade have such a strong following.
But no, such is the climate of the world that it is not really possible for me to talk about such things, not really. After all, by the time I come to write my next faltering words the world will almost certainly have changed again. We will have changed from a world outraged at the acts of 11th September to a world waging war on those responsible. If I were sure that this would lead to the world becoming lighter by a few thousand fanatical morons then I would rejoice. If it could be further guaranteed that no more innocent people would die because of this, I would rejoice. Funnily enough I'm not rejoicing. Such is war I suppose. Can we get it over with please?
Though I've tried (God knows, I've tried) to find something in the news to talk about, it always comes back to the Big Story. It's not as if I'd be short of material at the moment; Darth Tory's election to the Conservative Party leadership has the promise of being one of the most unintentionally funny moves in political history. Here is a man who physically resembles William Hague's older, less vivacious brother and, judging by some of his initial cabinet appointments, mentally resembles Margaret Thatcher's younger, less stable son. However, I shall hold to my promise to leave him alone for a while. I do so for 3 main reasons;
1: It's impossible to judge a man as a leader when he makes his debut in such interesting times.
2: He may end up driving moderate Tory's out of the Party and into the waiting LibDems and I'm worried that if I start to blather about that at length that I might jinx it.
3: I can't be bothered to talk about such an irrelevance as the Tories when there are things that are far more pertinent going on in the world.
It's not as if I'd just be limited to the political scene. After all, it's not every day that one of our Royals makes a balls up the like of which occurred last week. Okay, that's patently not true, but usually they at least have the benefit of being able to close ranks. After having seen the blatant dishonesty employed by the Production Company owned by the more pointless of his two brothers, Prince Charles is somewhat miffed. And who can blame him when the only media group to break the gentleman’s agreement not to film Prince William at University is the only one owned by a gentleman? It would seem that the upper classes could still teach the "gutter press" a thing or two about corruption and venality.
The secrecy surrounding William's University life also gives me further grounds to suspect that he will be a King whom I can admire. After all, it's only 2 years ago since the young Prince went on a week long cruise accompanied only by a dozen plump chested young lovelies. If his University career continues along the same vein as that, indeed if he just behaves like any normal 18-19 year old who finds himself away from home for the first substantial period of time in his life, then we may have a figurehead who is actually a little more representative of the British People. He already has a couple of bonus'; his Grand-dad is Greek so he'll have no trouble adjusting to the University Male diet of Kebabs. His Auntie Margaret could no doubt teach him a thing or two about binge drinking. And he only need look at his Mum's fate to develop the total mistrust of Moslems that this country will no doubt see over the coming months....
Also, if one were to, for example, wish to talk about Northern Ireland and the imminent end of the Northern Irish Assembly followed closely by the end of the cease-fire, one would have no shortage of reports coming from the province to draw upon. A group known as the Red Hand Defenders over the weekend murdered a journalist. Leaving aside the fact that their name immediately brings to mind the US children’s TV programme "The Red Hand Gang" ( a programme that sticks in my mind for 2 reasons; the theme tune which sort of went La la la la la, La La-la, Lalalalalalalala-La and so on and so forth, and the unfortunately named James Bond III whom if memory serves played the gangly black boy in the show.) this is a very serious and bad thing. The RHD is a cover name for the main Protestant groups the UDA et al. Aside from showcasing their obvious love of acronyms, the incident shows that the loyalists are not willing to stick to the cease-fire when it doesn't suit them. Which tends to suggest that the republicans won't. When coupled with the fact that Sinn Fein are on the cusp of being booted out of the NI assembly (whether it gets suspended or not) one can see that perhaps this New War on Terrorism will not just be confined to distant, mountainous area of land full of bugger all.
I don't have to just look at domestic affairs either. Former US President Clinton has found himself disbarred from the Supreme Court as part of the plea bargain that was struck during the Lewinsky scandal. This allows me to rejoice in the news that I now have something in common with Bill Clinton (apart of course from having gotten a blow job off somebody that he really shouldn't have), and that is information that I intend to use just as soon as I head down to Oxford to "accidentally" bump into his daughter (who I am thankful to say has changed an awful lot since her Dad first took office. She's still not as nice as Dubya's delightful daughters are though...).
Yet such is the level of activity in the news that I would not even need to confine myself to the ruling classes unless I desired to do so. Yesterday saw the father and stepmother of 6 year old Lauren Wright convicted of her manslaughter after having treated her to 18 months of sustained abuse. What is even more horrendous about the case is that it has provided the media with a bona fide Wicked Stepmother. Lauren's father was culpable for her death in that he turned a blind eye to what was going on (and so I now understand just what is meant by "blinded by love"). And what was going on? Oh, the usual sort of things; beating, starvation, neglect, torture. And you know what the worst thing about it is? It really is "the usual sort of thing". I mean for God's sake! I have a healthy attitude to small children in that I hate them and don't want to spend any time in their company. But to systematically beat and torture a child to death...I know I am of a liberal nature and have repeatedly stated that I believe in the benefits of rehabilitation for offenders, but when one hears of cases like this one can see exactly why the hang-em-and-flog-em brigade have such a strong following.
But no, such is the climate of the world that it is not really possible for me to talk about such things, not really. After all, by the time I come to write my next faltering words the world will almost certainly have changed again. We will have changed from a world outraged at the acts of 11th September to a world waging war on those responsible. If I were sure that this would lead to the world becoming lighter by a few thousand fanatical morons then I would rejoice. If it could be further guaranteed that no more innocent people would die because of this, I would rejoice. Funnily enough I'm not rejoicing. Such is war I suppose. Can we get it over with please?
Tuesday, 25 September 2001
Back to Normality
Or as normal as life gets post 9/11.
This last week seems to have seen a certain amount of normality returning to ones day to day life. If one looks at the news, the attack on the US still of course dominates the headlines (except of course for The Sun which was good enough to use it's front page yesterday to inform the world that Elton John like girls; rather dashed my hopes of living a comfortable lifestyle at the expense of a sugar daddy actually but I suppose it means my rectum can now live free from the fear of being brutally invaded by a faded rock star whose wigs and hair weaves get more press than he does...) but the rest of the news is gradually expanding to take up more than a few minutes on the 10 o clock news. We are also being exhorted by the great and good to carry on our lives. "Life must go on" is becoming something of a catchphrase amongst politicians now; Giulianni, Dubya, and Blair are all growing increasingly fond of it. So how does the world go about its daily business after such an apocalyptic event?
Well, seemingly it does so in pretty much the same way as it did beforehand. The Elton John headline is one example; one can rely on The Sun to distract us from our daily lives with amusing and sometimes well-written inanities. In Northern Ireland there were loyalist riots last night; presumably in the new climate of anti terrorism those good Protestants took it upon themselves to shoot and bomb those Catholics whom they considered terrorists (i.e. any and all Catholics that they could get there hands on). So we can content ourselves with the knowledge that at least one of the sides in that continuing saga remains as ignorant, stupid, and intolerant as ever.
Of course, some things have radically altered. The idea of the relationship between Iran and the UK developing in the way it has in the last week would have been unthinkable before September 11th, yet the press and political commentators are now pro-Iranian and act as if they have been all their lives. No-one seems to want to point out how unusual, not to mention fantastic, this is. Is that because after the events of that black Tuesday, we want to be reassured with certainties? And if that is the case, is that why events like this are talked of as if they had been expected for years and that no-one should worry themselves about it? That it is, in fact, business as usual?
This is also an opportune moment for me to say something that I never in my wildest dreams imagined I would. Dubya made a speech to Congress last week, and it was absolutely bloody brilliant. There, I said it. It was well delivered and displayed none of the usual mangling of the language that has become his forte. It also stopped well short of being the gung-ho, dead or alive, "I think I'm in a movie", rabble rousing diatribe that I had feared and expected. Yet this, when reported on, has had the subtext of "Well what else did you expect? He always makes excellent speeches." If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would begin to compare the media's behaviour with that of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 which saw past newspapers being altered so that the predictions of the past gelled with the facts of the present.
With that in mind we also have the sight of certain people taking advantage of the current, rather peculiar social climate to say or do things that would have caused howls of either amusement or outrage (depending on whether or not you read the Daily Mail) before the 11th. Michael Jackson for example is threatening to sue the BBC over comments made by Iain Lee about Jacko's legendary fondness for children. There was a time not so long ago when this would have caused splutters of disbelief; the man who felt the need to give a multi million dollar settlement to a child who claims that he was sexually abused by Jackson trying to sue an almost unheard of comedian who made his comments on Liquid News which airs on BBC 24hr News. I feel the need to mention the program, as you may not have ever heard of it. I feel the need to mention the name of the comedian, as he is one of the most cancerously unfunny men in televisual history. Michael Jackson apparently feels the need to boost the career of one and the ratings of another by getting upset about comments that, until I read about him intending to sue, I had never even heard. This is pretty much passing by without any comment from the media about how ridiculous the whole affair is. I suspect that in the next few weeks, no-one will want to be seen to be making waves in the press and so Jacko, either by accident or design, is taking full advantage of this.
But, as there are two sides to every coin, one can also say or do good things that would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago. The best example of this would be one of my all time favourite bugbears; Israel and Palestine. Jack Straw (a man who looks more like a Gestapo officer every time I see him) wrote that Arab anger over Palestine was one of the major motivations of Middle Eastern based terrorists. He also visited Iran and Jordan to get support for the coalition against...actually, I'm not quite sure exactly who it's meant to be against but we'll leave that for now. In any case, both his statement and his actions are quite correct. Unless you're an Israeli politician in which case both are racist. Never mind the fact that Straw took the opportunity to state that the Iranian view of Israel as a racist and Zionist country was, in his opinion, utter nonsense. Israel brooks no criticism of it's handling of Palestine, however appalling it may be. It would appear that Israel is unhappy that the rest of the world, having been growing increasingly sick of the heavy handed brutality that is routinely used against Palestinians, has leapt upon the opportunity to point out just how ghastly the likes of Shimon Peres et al are. Of course there are those who use this as an excuse to trot out the usual anti-Semitic rubbish but if one discounts them, the mood of the media seems to be fast becoming anti-Israeli concerning their treatment of Palestinians. Peres has always been a jumped up little thug who, but for an accident of birth, would have been far more at home in the Nazi party. It is pleasing to see that message being brought into our homes by the press.
And finally of course, there is politics. Politics seems to have been put on hold since the 11th. This means that we have missed the election of Darth Tory as the Conservative Party leader as well as the fact that the only right-wingers that aren't included in his shadow cabinet are Hermann Goering and Dr. Josef Goebbals. Those great irrelevancies, the party conferences, have for once been under reported and (oh please let this be true) cut back to 2 days instead of a full week. However, this more than anything else is an area where doing strange new things whilst making it seem as if life has always been this way is the most dangerous. Whilst I am fairly ambivalent about the issue of compulsory ID cards, one must acknowledge the strong feeling that this issue causes. Yet there is the danger that an ID card law can be brought in whilst we're not looking. It seems somehow disrespectful to the public to do that, and I hold out hope that it will not yet be the case. But I would hope that people keep an eye on the political scene now more than ever. Not to protect us from our government, but rather to gently remind them when they're going wrong.
So would appear that, despite the spectre of war (worldwide or localised) life does indeed go on. It has become a case of everything is different and it all stays the same. Who knows, perhaps next time I'll be writing about how Jeffrey Archer was hard done by, how the Conservative party is the bright future of British Politics, and how impressed I am with the warm and humane treatment of the Palestinians in Israel.
This last week seems to have seen a certain amount of normality returning to ones day to day life. If one looks at the news, the attack on the US still of course dominates the headlines (except of course for The Sun which was good enough to use it's front page yesterday to inform the world that Elton John like girls; rather dashed my hopes of living a comfortable lifestyle at the expense of a sugar daddy actually but I suppose it means my rectum can now live free from the fear of being brutally invaded by a faded rock star whose wigs and hair weaves get more press than he does...) but the rest of the news is gradually expanding to take up more than a few minutes on the 10 o clock news. We are also being exhorted by the great and good to carry on our lives. "Life must go on" is becoming something of a catchphrase amongst politicians now; Giulianni, Dubya, and Blair are all growing increasingly fond of it. So how does the world go about its daily business after such an apocalyptic event?
Well, seemingly it does so in pretty much the same way as it did beforehand. The Elton John headline is one example; one can rely on The Sun to distract us from our daily lives with amusing and sometimes well-written inanities. In Northern Ireland there were loyalist riots last night; presumably in the new climate of anti terrorism those good Protestants took it upon themselves to shoot and bomb those Catholics whom they considered terrorists (i.e. any and all Catholics that they could get there hands on). So we can content ourselves with the knowledge that at least one of the sides in that continuing saga remains as ignorant, stupid, and intolerant as ever.
Of course, some things have radically altered. The idea of the relationship between Iran and the UK developing in the way it has in the last week would have been unthinkable before September 11th, yet the press and political commentators are now pro-Iranian and act as if they have been all their lives. No-one seems to want to point out how unusual, not to mention fantastic, this is. Is that because after the events of that black Tuesday, we want to be reassured with certainties? And if that is the case, is that why events like this are talked of as if they had been expected for years and that no-one should worry themselves about it? That it is, in fact, business as usual?
This is also an opportune moment for me to say something that I never in my wildest dreams imagined I would. Dubya made a speech to Congress last week, and it was absolutely bloody brilliant. There, I said it. It was well delivered and displayed none of the usual mangling of the language that has become his forte. It also stopped well short of being the gung-ho, dead or alive, "I think I'm in a movie", rabble rousing diatribe that I had feared and expected. Yet this, when reported on, has had the subtext of "Well what else did you expect? He always makes excellent speeches." If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would begin to compare the media's behaviour with that of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 which saw past newspapers being altered so that the predictions of the past gelled with the facts of the present.
With that in mind we also have the sight of certain people taking advantage of the current, rather peculiar social climate to say or do things that would have caused howls of either amusement or outrage (depending on whether or not you read the Daily Mail) before the 11th. Michael Jackson for example is threatening to sue the BBC over comments made by Iain Lee about Jacko's legendary fondness for children. There was a time not so long ago when this would have caused splutters of disbelief; the man who felt the need to give a multi million dollar settlement to a child who claims that he was sexually abused by Jackson trying to sue an almost unheard of comedian who made his comments on Liquid News which airs on BBC 24hr News. I feel the need to mention the program, as you may not have ever heard of it. I feel the need to mention the name of the comedian, as he is one of the most cancerously unfunny men in televisual history. Michael Jackson apparently feels the need to boost the career of one and the ratings of another by getting upset about comments that, until I read about him intending to sue, I had never even heard. This is pretty much passing by without any comment from the media about how ridiculous the whole affair is. I suspect that in the next few weeks, no-one will want to be seen to be making waves in the press and so Jacko, either by accident or design, is taking full advantage of this.
But, as there are two sides to every coin, one can also say or do good things that would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago. The best example of this would be one of my all time favourite bugbears; Israel and Palestine. Jack Straw (a man who looks more like a Gestapo officer every time I see him) wrote that Arab anger over Palestine was one of the major motivations of Middle Eastern based terrorists. He also visited Iran and Jordan to get support for the coalition against...actually, I'm not quite sure exactly who it's meant to be against but we'll leave that for now. In any case, both his statement and his actions are quite correct. Unless you're an Israeli politician in which case both are racist. Never mind the fact that Straw took the opportunity to state that the Iranian view of Israel as a racist and Zionist country was, in his opinion, utter nonsense. Israel brooks no criticism of it's handling of Palestine, however appalling it may be. It would appear that Israel is unhappy that the rest of the world, having been growing increasingly sick of the heavy handed brutality that is routinely used against Palestinians, has leapt upon the opportunity to point out just how ghastly the likes of Shimon Peres et al are. Of course there are those who use this as an excuse to trot out the usual anti-Semitic rubbish but if one discounts them, the mood of the media seems to be fast becoming anti-Israeli concerning their treatment of Palestinians. Peres has always been a jumped up little thug who, but for an accident of birth, would have been far more at home in the Nazi party. It is pleasing to see that message being brought into our homes by the press.
And finally of course, there is politics. Politics seems to have been put on hold since the 11th. This means that we have missed the election of Darth Tory as the Conservative Party leader as well as the fact that the only right-wingers that aren't included in his shadow cabinet are Hermann Goering and Dr. Josef Goebbals. Those great irrelevancies, the party conferences, have for once been under reported and (oh please let this be true) cut back to 2 days instead of a full week. However, this more than anything else is an area where doing strange new things whilst making it seem as if life has always been this way is the most dangerous. Whilst I am fairly ambivalent about the issue of compulsory ID cards, one must acknowledge the strong feeling that this issue causes. Yet there is the danger that an ID card law can be brought in whilst we're not looking. It seems somehow disrespectful to the public to do that, and I hold out hope that it will not yet be the case. But I would hope that people keep an eye on the political scene now more than ever. Not to protect us from our government, but rather to gently remind them when they're going wrong.
So would appear that, despite the spectre of war (worldwide or localised) life does indeed go on. It has become a case of everything is different and it all stays the same. Who knows, perhaps next time I'll be writing about how Jeffrey Archer was hard done by, how the Conservative party is the bright future of British Politics, and how impressed I am with the warm and humane treatment of the Palestinians in Israel.
Friday, 21 September 2001
Feed my Conspiracy
Though my approach is rather scattergun, I stand by this essay; the majority of Conspiracy theorists are so single-minded and egocentric that they ensure any legitimate concern or opposition to government pronouncements can be safely dismissed as the frothings of a lunatic.
Since the attacks on America last Tuesday, the patriotism and strength of character of the American people has been a frequent point of reference for many news reports and commentaries. However, as early as last Thursday, something altogether more sinister began to bubble up from the dark depths of the US psyche. Whilst the vast and overwhelming majority of people could speak of nothing other than their deep shock and horror at the atrocity, there were elements in America that met it with grim satisfaction. When the shock began to give way to justifiable anger and the Bush administration began to use the rhetoric of revenge tempered by justice, those same elements held it up as proof of their own summation of events. And whilst governments across the world have united in their intent to support America, these people are interested only in pushing forward their own agenda at the expense of the truth. There is a name for these people.
Conspiracy theorists.
Before the world changed these people were viewed with a mixture of mild revulsion and reluctant tolerance. It is they and their ilk who spawned the Oklahoma Bombing (and for that matter continue to create new strands in the tangled webs of that particular "conspiracy"). They are the one's who are adamant that there is a New World Order seeking control of the world. They are the ones who have more in common with Bin Laden than they perhaps realise; a vast number of their theories identify "World Zionism" as their enemy. They too mewl about the soullesness of capitalist America and how the Government has become the oppressor of those it was sworn to protect. They too make their fortress homes in mountain hideaways and arm themselves to the teeth in ready for the coming war against the US government.
And yet I hoped that, just as new opportunities for peace have risen from the ashes of the disaster (for example, Iran and the US have exchanged more positive dialogue in the last week than since the fall of the Shah) these insular and ignorant few would stop looking for an enemy in their own country with the realisation that they have a fearsome foe abroad. And how wrong I have been proved...
The World Trade Centre fell on Tuesday. America spent that day in shock. On Wednesday the grief was turning to anger. By this time, certain web message boards contained messages from people musing whether or not the government really was caught by surprise. On Thursday the wheels were turning ever faster; Osama Bin Laden had been named as the prime suspect in the bombing. America was realising that it had a long and torturous road ahead of it, but it had the consolation of knowing that the world was behind it. Furthermore, the understandable desire for vengeance was tempered with the growing acceptance that the methods of the past decade were worse than useless. And yet the message boards hummed with an altogether different message.
The main thread of the theories that are springing up run thus;
1. The crash was organised and implemented by the Bush administration using terrorist intermediaries. They did so in order to generate public support for the implementation of legislation that will severely reduce the rights and liberties of the people. The proof provided is a call allegedly made by a US Navy servicemen warning his family that something major was due to happen in an urban area.
2. The crash was organised by the New World Order, sometimes referred to as the Illuminati. This shadowy organisation organised the crash in order to unify the world's nations against a common enemy. Once unified the NWO could take charge of the global coalition using unspecified means and thus rule the world. The NWO is ran by and for the benefit of world Jewry. Therefore the reason Israel is so unwilling to make peace with the Palestinians is because they want to encourage more devastating attacks on the US.
3. The crash was organised by 7-foot tall shapeshifting lizards from Mars. They did so using the Illuminati as a front. I couldn't comment on their motivations for doing so but anyone who wishes to know more should read "I Am Me, I Am Free" by David Icke.
None of the people who advocate the above theories are joking. They believe with all of their heart that they are one of the few keepers of the truth and thus defenders of freedom. One cannot talk to them or point out any flaws in the logic behind their arguments. If one does, then one is dismissed as a lackey of the Government, or a poor deluded soul who is foolish enough to believe what the NWO tells you. Let me just make that crystal clear; men and women who believe that all world ills are the work of Lizards from Mars have told me that I am deluded for believing what I read in the news.
Earlier on I referred to them as insular thinkers. What I mean by this is their absolute conviction that all roads lead back to the US government. They cannot entertain for a second the notion that anything may have been planned overseas. One almost expects a declaration that the existence of a world outside America is a lie told by the government. It's almost as if the patriotism that comes naturally to America has been twisted so that rather then being the finest nation in the world, they become the most evil.
Because of this insular thinking, their beliefs are almost fundamentalist in that they will not accept any explanation that may deviate from their particular theory. This leads to arguments of no little ferocity between the theorists themselves. Much like the revolutionaries who use Islam as their excuse for war, they do more battle with those who disagree with their theory by a few sentences than with their professed enemy. This blinkered refusal to accept any interpretation of the facts other than their own together with their selectiveness in what they do accept as truth puts them on a readily identifiable par with Bin Laden; the Koran preaches tolerance of the other "peoples of the book" (Jews and Christians), yet Bin Laden is an implacable enemy of Israel and the Jews. Many Theorists claim to be clean living God fearing folk, yet they are happy to align themselves with extreme right wing organisations that preach violence and armed resistance to the erosion of their liberties. Both believe absolutely in their own worldview, and regard those who disagree with suspicion and hatred.
In a display of Doublethink that would make Orwell proud, Conspiracy theorists claim that they are the true fighters for American freedom, yet one is considered their enemy if you disagree with what they say. I have spent a few hours this week posting messages to their websites, and I have found myself barracked and abused for suggesting other interpretations of the weeks events. I asked what sort of government would willingly cause huge damage to their own economy. At first the replies waxed lyrical about Hitler's burning of the Reichstag and Nero's burning of Rome, as if those historical examples provided proof of governmental involvement in the destruction of the World Trade Centre. Then I was informed that the New World Order organised the crash so that they could move the main centres of finance away from America and into the Third World in order to maximise their profits. I asked what proof they could provide me. In between the catcalls and abuse, I was told that the fact that industry and manufacturing is based around the Pacific Rim was proof enough. Apparently these people have never heard of market forces, or the desire of companies everywhere to minimise their overheads whilst maximising their profits.
One of the very worst things about these people is that they make it easy for people to view all dissenting voices as crackpot conspiracy theorists. People with genuine moral objections to conflict, or those who want to see restraint and temperance from the US in their response to the outrage will be lumped together with the people who equate Jews with the minions of Satan. If their really was a New World Order then they would be delighted at the smokescreen provided for them by these few fools. There have been whispers that if the world is indeed heading for conflict, America will have to deal with enemy within before confronting the enemy without. Those whispers have been directed at Moslems. America needs to look beyond skin colour and religion to find the enemy within its borders.
Since the attacks on America last Tuesday, the patriotism and strength of character of the American people has been a frequent point of reference for many news reports and commentaries. However, as early as last Thursday, something altogether more sinister began to bubble up from the dark depths of the US psyche. Whilst the vast and overwhelming majority of people could speak of nothing other than their deep shock and horror at the atrocity, there were elements in America that met it with grim satisfaction. When the shock began to give way to justifiable anger and the Bush administration began to use the rhetoric of revenge tempered by justice, those same elements held it up as proof of their own summation of events. And whilst governments across the world have united in their intent to support America, these people are interested only in pushing forward their own agenda at the expense of the truth. There is a name for these people.
Conspiracy theorists.
Before the world changed these people were viewed with a mixture of mild revulsion and reluctant tolerance. It is they and their ilk who spawned the Oklahoma Bombing (and for that matter continue to create new strands in the tangled webs of that particular "conspiracy"). They are the one's who are adamant that there is a New World Order seeking control of the world. They are the ones who have more in common with Bin Laden than they perhaps realise; a vast number of their theories identify "World Zionism" as their enemy. They too mewl about the soullesness of capitalist America and how the Government has become the oppressor of those it was sworn to protect. They too make their fortress homes in mountain hideaways and arm themselves to the teeth in ready for the coming war against the US government.
And yet I hoped that, just as new opportunities for peace have risen from the ashes of the disaster (for example, Iran and the US have exchanged more positive dialogue in the last week than since the fall of the Shah) these insular and ignorant few would stop looking for an enemy in their own country with the realisation that they have a fearsome foe abroad. And how wrong I have been proved...
The World Trade Centre fell on Tuesday. America spent that day in shock. On Wednesday the grief was turning to anger. By this time, certain web message boards contained messages from people musing whether or not the government really was caught by surprise. On Thursday the wheels were turning ever faster; Osama Bin Laden had been named as the prime suspect in the bombing. America was realising that it had a long and torturous road ahead of it, but it had the consolation of knowing that the world was behind it. Furthermore, the understandable desire for vengeance was tempered with the growing acceptance that the methods of the past decade were worse than useless. And yet the message boards hummed with an altogether different message.
The main thread of the theories that are springing up run thus;
1. The crash was organised and implemented by the Bush administration using terrorist intermediaries. They did so in order to generate public support for the implementation of legislation that will severely reduce the rights and liberties of the people. The proof provided is a call allegedly made by a US Navy servicemen warning his family that something major was due to happen in an urban area.
2. The crash was organised by the New World Order, sometimes referred to as the Illuminati. This shadowy organisation organised the crash in order to unify the world's nations against a common enemy. Once unified the NWO could take charge of the global coalition using unspecified means and thus rule the world. The NWO is ran by and for the benefit of world Jewry. Therefore the reason Israel is so unwilling to make peace with the Palestinians is because they want to encourage more devastating attacks on the US.
3. The crash was organised by 7-foot tall shapeshifting lizards from Mars. They did so using the Illuminati as a front. I couldn't comment on their motivations for doing so but anyone who wishes to know more should read "I Am Me, I Am Free" by David Icke.
None of the people who advocate the above theories are joking. They believe with all of their heart that they are one of the few keepers of the truth and thus defenders of freedom. One cannot talk to them or point out any flaws in the logic behind their arguments. If one does, then one is dismissed as a lackey of the Government, or a poor deluded soul who is foolish enough to believe what the NWO tells you. Let me just make that crystal clear; men and women who believe that all world ills are the work of Lizards from Mars have told me that I am deluded for believing what I read in the news.
Earlier on I referred to them as insular thinkers. What I mean by this is their absolute conviction that all roads lead back to the US government. They cannot entertain for a second the notion that anything may have been planned overseas. One almost expects a declaration that the existence of a world outside America is a lie told by the government. It's almost as if the patriotism that comes naturally to America has been twisted so that rather then being the finest nation in the world, they become the most evil.
Because of this insular thinking, their beliefs are almost fundamentalist in that they will not accept any explanation that may deviate from their particular theory. This leads to arguments of no little ferocity between the theorists themselves. Much like the revolutionaries who use Islam as their excuse for war, they do more battle with those who disagree with their theory by a few sentences than with their professed enemy. This blinkered refusal to accept any interpretation of the facts other than their own together with their selectiveness in what they do accept as truth puts them on a readily identifiable par with Bin Laden; the Koran preaches tolerance of the other "peoples of the book" (Jews and Christians), yet Bin Laden is an implacable enemy of Israel and the Jews. Many Theorists claim to be clean living God fearing folk, yet they are happy to align themselves with extreme right wing organisations that preach violence and armed resistance to the erosion of their liberties. Both believe absolutely in their own worldview, and regard those who disagree with suspicion and hatred.
In a display of Doublethink that would make Orwell proud, Conspiracy theorists claim that they are the true fighters for American freedom, yet one is considered their enemy if you disagree with what they say. I have spent a few hours this week posting messages to their websites, and I have found myself barracked and abused for suggesting other interpretations of the weeks events. I asked what sort of government would willingly cause huge damage to their own economy. At first the replies waxed lyrical about Hitler's burning of the Reichstag and Nero's burning of Rome, as if those historical examples provided proof of governmental involvement in the destruction of the World Trade Centre. Then I was informed that the New World Order organised the crash so that they could move the main centres of finance away from America and into the Third World in order to maximise their profits. I asked what proof they could provide me. In between the catcalls and abuse, I was told that the fact that industry and manufacturing is based around the Pacific Rim was proof enough. Apparently these people have never heard of market forces, or the desire of companies everywhere to minimise their overheads whilst maximising their profits.
One of the very worst things about these people is that they make it easy for people to view all dissenting voices as crackpot conspiracy theorists. People with genuine moral objections to conflict, or those who want to see restraint and temperance from the US in their response to the outrage will be lumped together with the people who equate Jews with the minions of Satan. If their really was a New World Order then they would be delighted at the smokescreen provided for them by these few fools. There have been whispers that if the world is indeed heading for conflict, America will have to deal with enemy within before confronting the enemy without. Those whispers have been directed at Moslems. America needs to look beyond skin colour and religion to find the enemy within its borders.
Tuesday, 18 September 2001
One Week Later
Unfortunately, the latter option of the final paragraph seems to have been the one that has come to pass.
It would be nice to record the fact that I was incredibly rash last week when rambling about the onset of WWIII. It would be even nicer to report that Dubya has proved me entirely wrong and is currently, much to my surprise, acting in a manner that blends the best aspects of statesmanship and war leader. And it would put the icing on the cake to be able to sit here and write about the opportunity for world peace that has arisen from the ashes of the World Trade Centre.
Yes, it would be lovely to say all of that. It would, alas, be complete bollocks of course but it would be nice. Today is a Tuesday, and it is my personal belief that all of the most dreadful things in the world happen on a Tuesday. After all, at least Monday has the saving grace of being immediately after the weekend and so one can talk to ones colleagues about it. Wednesday is the middle of the week, Thursday is almost at the end, and Friday...well, I don't really need to say any more about that. Saturday is of course marvelous and Sunday, whilst boring, does have the advantage of allowing one to recover from ones hangover. But Tuesday just squats malignantly midweek, too far away from the previous weekend to justify tales of past glory and drunkenness, and far enough away from the coming Friday to allow excitement to build. My relationship with my fiancee ended on a Tuesday, my friend's marriage effectively ended on a Tuesday. Another close friend was hospitalised the Tuesday before last, and I hardly need remind you of the previous Tuesday's events. So what is the state of play this Tuesday?
Well, firstly I think for a change I shall look at the positive side of things first of all. The people of America as a whole have surprised and delighted me with their response to the atrocity. In general their responses have been calm and measured. Certain members of the government and legislature have fulfilled their roles admirably. Mayor Giullianni of NYC in particular has emerged as an heroic leader, being both compassionate to the loss suffered yet tough enough to order police protection for the city's Muslim and Asian populace in case of revenge attacks (as a side note, I also see that a man in Dallas murdered a Sikh garage attendant and attempted to murder 2 more because he was a "patriot". That's as may be, but only if the definition of patriot is given as "murderous, ignorant redneck". If you are unsure as to just why I find the murder of a Sikh in retaliation for the crimes of Muslim fundamentalists darkly amusing, try calling any Sikh gentleman a Muslim and see what happens. I guarantee that you will be given a unique opportunity to discover just what the ceremonial knives carried by Sikhs can be used for).
The Muslim world, save for a few dissenting voices, has been united in it's condemnation for the act of terrorism. I'm making a point of saying "the act" because a lot of Islamic states quite understand the motivations of the terrorists. These were alluded to in Question Time last week, where the general message was that America was getting what it deserved. The likes of Iran have basically said that America's policy of supporting Israel come what may whilst condemning any form of Palestinian response was bound to provoke an act of terrorism and they (Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia etc.) condemn that act unreservedly. In fact the head of the Sunni Muslim religion (the major Islamic faith, with Shi'a being the minority. The Taleban and Osama Bin Laden are theoretically Sunni Muslims) stated that America is right to retaliate according to the Koran. So the fear of a conflict between the Western and Islamic worlds has been assuaged somewhat.
Finally, Israel is finding itself somewhat isolated as it tries to use this situation to brutalise the Palestinians still further (incidentally, the latest news of Israel’s attempt to round up people suspected of involvement in the WTC attack has seen their security forces murder a man with the mental age of an 11 year old). America has basically told them to resolve the Palestinian conflict by peaceful means, and above all to do it NOW! Not that they're listening right now, but I welcome being proved wrong on this point as you may have noticed that I have something of a bee in my bonnet about Israel and Palestine.
Okay, now let's dally with the flip side for a short while. What about the negative repercussions of last week? I should start (naturally) with the man whose job it is to give America's response to this tragedy. What a pity it is then that their response is being given by a man who is completely inept and, it has been said more than once, looks like he would be more at home swinging on a tyre whilst eating a banana. Dubya has...well, not been appalling because his advisors (Colin Powell et al) are very talented men. I don't agree with their politics, but they do know how to run a country (apparently they know how to do it better in a time of war...). I'll not criticise him for the flitting about the way he did on the day of the attack either. After all, he is more than just the president; to all intents and purposes he is the United States of America and I quite understand the desire to keep him safe.
What I will criticise him for is his pandering to the hawks in his government who want to wage an all out conventional war against...well, pretty much whomever sticks their head up over the bunker. He seems to have either misjudged world opinion or he simply doesn't care. He's endangered Muslim support from the off by referring to the retaliation against Bin Laden as a crusade. In the Muslim world, the word "crusade" has powerful resonance. It means the bringing of the Cross to the Muslim world, the forcible conversion to Christianity or death. It is precisely the sort of term that would give those radical Muslims ammunition to feed their claim that America is simply waging an indiscriminate war against Islam. For all that most of the people in the world agree that America should give a strong response to the attacks last week, the majority do not want to see an attack on any country that Dubya can't spell.
And speaking of Afghanistan and Pakistan, their situation is growing rather dire. Afghanistan, a desolate place at the best of times, is undergoing a famine that will kill perhaps 5 million people. In response to the attacks last week, all food aid has been cut off. There is now no food going into the country and precious little being produced there. Somehow I don't imagine that the terrorist camps will suffer from lack of food. In fact, I rather think that it will be the poor sods that are trying to eke out some kind of normal life that will bear the brunt.
Pakistan is on the verge of a civil war. Their leader, General Musharraf, has stated that he will aid America in whatever way he can which presumably includes stationing NATO troops there if there is a war against the Taleban. However, a huge number of Muslims led by Sami Ul-Haq are ferocious in their support for the Taleban. As well they would be considering that the Taleban take their religious schooling from the Talib schools that litter Pakistan. Many of them learnt their twisted view of Islam under the auspices of Sami Ul-Haq. They have sworn to wage war against their government if America is given any support at all. America has sworn to wage war against Pakistan if they do not align themselves with the USA. Add the fact that Pakistan is the world's only Islamic State with Nuclear weapons to the mix and we have some interesting times ahead.
All in all, I would say that the world is precariously balanced between a war that will lead to a lasting peace and an end to fundamentalist terrorism, or a war that will see a cack handed and brutal attempt to suppress terrorism and lead to it's proliferation. Either way, it's war.
It would be nice to record the fact that I was incredibly rash last week when rambling about the onset of WWIII. It would be even nicer to report that Dubya has proved me entirely wrong and is currently, much to my surprise, acting in a manner that blends the best aspects of statesmanship and war leader. And it would put the icing on the cake to be able to sit here and write about the opportunity for world peace that has arisen from the ashes of the World Trade Centre.
Yes, it would be lovely to say all of that. It would, alas, be complete bollocks of course but it would be nice. Today is a Tuesday, and it is my personal belief that all of the most dreadful things in the world happen on a Tuesday. After all, at least Monday has the saving grace of being immediately after the weekend and so one can talk to ones colleagues about it. Wednesday is the middle of the week, Thursday is almost at the end, and Friday...well, I don't really need to say any more about that. Saturday is of course marvelous and Sunday, whilst boring, does have the advantage of allowing one to recover from ones hangover. But Tuesday just squats malignantly midweek, too far away from the previous weekend to justify tales of past glory and drunkenness, and far enough away from the coming Friday to allow excitement to build. My relationship with my fiancee ended on a Tuesday, my friend's marriage effectively ended on a Tuesday. Another close friend was hospitalised the Tuesday before last, and I hardly need remind you of the previous Tuesday's events. So what is the state of play this Tuesday?
Well, firstly I think for a change I shall look at the positive side of things first of all. The people of America as a whole have surprised and delighted me with their response to the atrocity. In general their responses have been calm and measured. Certain members of the government and legislature have fulfilled their roles admirably. Mayor Giullianni of NYC in particular has emerged as an heroic leader, being both compassionate to the loss suffered yet tough enough to order police protection for the city's Muslim and Asian populace in case of revenge attacks (as a side note, I also see that a man in Dallas murdered a Sikh garage attendant and attempted to murder 2 more because he was a "patriot". That's as may be, but only if the definition of patriot is given as "murderous, ignorant redneck". If you are unsure as to just why I find the murder of a Sikh in retaliation for the crimes of Muslim fundamentalists darkly amusing, try calling any Sikh gentleman a Muslim and see what happens. I guarantee that you will be given a unique opportunity to discover just what the ceremonial knives carried by Sikhs can be used for).
The Muslim world, save for a few dissenting voices, has been united in it's condemnation for the act of terrorism. I'm making a point of saying "the act" because a lot of Islamic states quite understand the motivations of the terrorists. These were alluded to in Question Time last week, where the general message was that America was getting what it deserved. The likes of Iran have basically said that America's policy of supporting Israel come what may whilst condemning any form of Palestinian response was bound to provoke an act of terrorism and they (Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia etc.) condemn that act unreservedly. In fact the head of the Sunni Muslim religion (the major Islamic faith, with Shi'a being the minority. The Taleban and Osama Bin Laden are theoretically Sunni Muslims) stated that America is right to retaliate according to the Koran. So the fear of a conflict between the Western and Islamic worlds has been assuaged somewhat.
Finally, Israel is finding itself somewhat isolated as it tries to use this situation to brutalise the Palestinians still further (incidentally, the latest news of Israel’s attempt to round up people suspected of involvement in the WTC attack has seen their security forces murder a man with the mental age of an 11 year old). America has basically told them to resolve the Palestinian conflict by peaceful means, and above all to do it NOW! Not that they're listening right now, but I welcome being proved wrong on this point as you may have noticed that I have something of a bee in my bonnet about Israel and Palestine.
Okay, now let's dally with the flip side for a short while. What about the negative repercussions of last week? I should start (naturally) with the man whose job it is to give America's response to this tragedy. What a pity it is then that their response is being given by a man who is completely inept and, it has been said more than once, looks like he would be more at home swinging on a tyre whilst eating a banana. Dubya has...well, not been appalling because his advisors (Colin Powell et al) are very talented men. I don't agree with their politics, but they do know how to run a country (apparently they know how to do it better in a time of war...). I'll not criticise him for the flitting about the way he did on the day of the attack either. After all, he is more than just the president; to all intents and purposes he is the United States of America and I quite understand the desire to keep him safe.
What I will criticise him for is his pandering to the hawks in his government who want to wage an all out conventional war against...well, pretty much whomever sticks their head up over the bunker. He seems to have either misjudged world opinion or he simply doesn't care. He's endangered Muslim support from the off by referring to the retaliation against Bin Laden as a crusade. In the Muslim world, the word "crusade" has powerful resonance. It means the bringing of the Cross to the Muslim world, the forcible conversion to Christianity or death. It is precisely the sort of term that would give those radical Muslims ammunition to feed their claim that America is simply waging an indiscriminate war against Islam. For all that most of the people in the world agree that America should give a strong response to the attacks last week, the majority do not want to see an attack on any country that Dubya can't spell.
And speaking of Afghanistan and Pakistan, their situation is growing rather dire. Afghanistan, a desolate place at the best of times, is undergoing a famine that will kill perhaps 5 million people. In response to the attacks last week, all food aid has been cut off. There is now no food going into the country and precious little being produced there. Somehow I don't imagine that the terrorist camps will suffer from lack of food. In fact, I rather think that it will be the poor sods that are trying to eke out some kind of normal life that will bear the brunt.
Pakistan is on the verge of a civil war. Their leader, General Musharraf, has stated that he will aid America in whatever way he can which presumably includes stationing NATO troops there if there is a war against the Taleban. However, a huge number of Muslims led by Sami Ul-Haq are ferocious in their support for the Taleban. As well they would be considering that the Taleban take their religious schooling from the Talib schools that litter Pakistan. Many of them learnt their twisted view of Islam under the auspices of Sami Ul-Haq. They have sworn to wage war against their government if America is given any support at all. America has sworn to wage war against Pakistan if they do not align themselves with the USA. Add the fact that Pakistan is the world's only Islamic State with Nuclear weapons to the mix and we have some interesting times ahead.
All in all, I would say that the world is precariously balanced between a war that will lead to a lasting peace and an end to fundamentalist terrorism, or a war that will see a cack handed and brutal attempt to suppress terrorism and lead to it's proliferation. Either way, it's war.
Wednesday, 12 September 2001
The day after the day before
Today there are numerous questions that remain unanswered. I could write all day about them but I shall limit myself to a few that are pertinent to that which I have wrote about previously. Firstly, what does this mean for the Palestinian people? Secondly, what does this mean for Dubya? Finally, what does this mean for the world and for democracy?
I scribbled something down yesterday about how I hoped that the reports of a Palestinian group that claimed responsibility for the atrocity were false. Israel hasn't exactly been condemned by the world at large for it brutal treatment of the Palestinians. If they were responsible for this, the worst terrorist act in world history, then there would probably be a plaque put up in the remnants of the West Bank to thank the Israeli army for wiping the Palestinians of the face of the earth. Thankfully, it would appear that they are not directly responsible. Unfortunately I have a sinking feeling that it no longer matters whether they were directly responsible or not. Today 7 Palestinians have been murdered by Israeli troops hunting for terror suspects. Legitimate enough one may think, especially in the light of yesterday’s horror. One of those killed was an 11-year-old girl. The Israeli's used tanks to shell the West Bank. I had no idea it was possible to interrogate suspects via tank shells but apparently (according to Israel) it is.
The death of at least 1 innocent person pales when compared to yesterday, but this is only the beginning. The rhetoric is already being stepped up as Israel states that ``The world will not be as patient now as it was before to the terror attacks conducted and supported by the Palestinian Authority.'' What a wonderful euphemism for "You're at our mercy now, and there is no help on the way." Ehud Barak said as much during an interview last night, and moreover he encouraged America to take out it's vengeance on Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya...anyone whom Israel has appalling relations with because of it's treatment of Palestinians in fact.
Even worse for them is their own reaction to the news. By now most people will have seen the jubilation along the West Bank at the news of the terrorism. This was the stupid reaction of a desperate people. All they had received from America was condemnation of their retaliation against Israel. America has always backed Israel itself to the hilt. As far as they were concerned, the Americans were having the terror suffered daily by the Palestinians brought to their doorstep. That is my objective viewpoint. I fully understand that, if I were an American, I would not be so objective. Whenever any international voice even looks like being raised in sympathy to the Palestinians they will be reminded of the dancing in the streets at the news of such horror. Although they may not have had anything at all to do with yesterday's attack they have surely doomed themselves to become targets of retaliation for it whether by Israel or America.
Next one must examine Dubya and America in general. My feelings about him are well known. He is still pretty much untested and here he is, faced with the biggest crisis since Pearl Harbour. Is he up to the challenge? Well he has very conservative minded advisors, and as my own opinion of his own leadership abilities is low, I'm working on the assumption that the decisions are going to be coming from Dick Cheney, Colin Powell et al. In general his advisors are a hawkish lot and this was exemplified when they pushed for a hard line against China when the spy plane crashed there.
This event gives Dubya the opportunity to seal his place in World History forever. He could be the President who Ended the Threat of World Terror. Or he could be The President who Started the Third World War. I don't think I'm being over-paranoid by saying that, but more of that later.
As a side issue, this cataclysm may see the end of the Son of Star Wars Defence Shield. That defence system is untried, has failed in all tests so far, and in any case wouldn't have stopped any part of yesterday’s horror. With luck, the money that they will save on that will go on a more rational defence system; lots more highly trained people. America has shown an over-reliance on gadgetry when it comes to military and intelligence matters. Yesterday has proven that, as yet, there is no substitute for trained personnel.
And what of the American people? I can't say for certain of course, but by now the shock and anguish at yesterday's events will be giving way to anger. I've already said what I had to say about that particular emotion and on a national scale it will be a truly frightening sight. And when the anger of a nation as powerful as America has to be vented by a leader as inept as Dubya then the world really should tremble. People will want vengeance (though I am heartened by some of the editorials in today's US papers. Many call on people to remember that by bombing Afghanistan to rubble they would be committing an atrocity against innocent people just as the terrorists did yesterday) and the cold satisfaction of knowing that those who did this are hurting as much as they are. The word "War" has been used more than once to describe how America will react to this. I said repeatedly yesterday that America has a clear policy on dealing with attacks on American Territory with weapons of Mass Destruction. A low yield nuclear weapon being fired at the approximate location of Osama Bin Laden (if it is indeed he behind this) is by no means out of the question (which is probably why Joanne's colleague thought I'd called about the end of the world yesterday...). After all, Afghanistan is sparsely populated, and Dubya has already said that America will make no differentiation between those who did this and those who shelter them.
This leads rather nicely on to the implications for the rest of the world. Simply put, the world is has changed for good. The very fabric of world politics is no longer the same, be it with the western world's relations with the Middle East, or ease of International Air Travel, make no mistake that things have changed. There seems to be a palpable sense of the world holding it's breath whilst the full horror of yesterday's attack sinks in. We'll hold our breath still longer whilst America considers it's response against an intangible enemy. There are those who say that America will be fully justified in turning Iraq and Afghanistan into nuclear polished glass. Those who do say that are no different to the fanatics who planned yesterday's terrorist action because they too had absolutely no thought as to the deaths of innocent people. By the same token, anyone who would condemn America for its desire for vengeance are equally as unrealistic. For all our European smugness about disasters in America (by which I mean the undercurrent of feeling that says "Now you know what it's like to feel fear of terrorism. Now perhaps you'll stop funding our terrorists".) we should understand the very real need for a visible act of vengeance.We should perhaps prepare ourselves for a response that will further change world history. I'm hung up on the fear of nuclear weapons. That is my particular nightmare and has been for over 15 years (although if I were the sort of person who puts any stock in prophecy I would say this; I've had nightmares about nuclear war almost every night since I was about 8 or 9. I hadn't had a full night’s sleep since I was at high school because of this. On Monday night I slept an undisturbed and dreamless sleep. Maybe I should start claiming to be Nostradamus or something....).
However, the US military has got all manner of new and scary toys that they can deploy. As of yesterday, all bets are off. We can no longer take it for granted that the tomorrow will be about as peaceful as today. That is not to say that an extraordinary act of retaliation is inevitable, but it is probable, and I think we'd all do well to remember that.
I scribbled something down yesterday about how I hoped that the reports of a Palestinian group that claimed responsibility for the atrocity were false. Israel hasn't exactly been condemned by the world at large for it brutal treatment of the Palestinians. If they were responsible for this, the worst terrorist act in world history, then there would probably be a plaque put up in the remnants of the West Bank to thank the Israeli army for wiping the Palestinians of the face of the earth. Thankfully, it would appear that they are not directly responsible. Unfortunately I have a sinking feeling that it no longer matters whether they were directly responsible or not. Today 7 Palestinians have been murdered by Israeli troops hunting for terror suspects. Legitimate enough one may think, especially in the light of yesterday’s horror. One of those killed was an 11-year-old girl. The Israeli's used tanks to shell the West Bank. I had no idea it was possible to interrogate suspects via tank shells but apparently (according to Israel) it is.
The death of at least 1 innocent person pales when compared to yesterday, but this is only the beginning. The rhetoric is already being stepped up as Israel states that ``The world will not be as patient now as it was before to the terror attacks conducted and supported by the Palestinian Authority.'' What a wonderful euphemism for "You're at our mercy now, and there is no help on the way." Ehud Barak said as much during an interview last night, and moreover he encouraged America to take out it's vengeance on Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya...anyone whom Israel has appalling relations with because of it's treatment of Palestinians in fact.
Even worse for them is their own reaction to the news. By now most people will have seen the jubilation along the West Bank at the news of the terrorism. This was the stupid reaction of a desperate people. All they had received from America was condemnation of their retaliation against Israel. America has always backed Israel itself to the hilt. As far as they were concerned, the Americans were having the terror suffered daily by the Palestinians brought to their doorstep. That is my objective viewpoint. I fully understand that, if I were an American, I would not be so objective. Whenever any international voice even looks like being raised in sympathy to the Palestinians they will be reminded of the dancing in the streets at the news of such horror. Although they may not have had anything at all to do with yesterday's attack they have surely doomed themselves to become targets of retaliation for it whether by Israel or America.
Next one must examine Dubya and America in general. My feelings about him are well known. He is still pretty much untested and here he is, faced with the biggest crisis since Pearl Harbour. Is he up to the challenge? Well he has very conservative minded advisors, and as my own opinion of his own leadership abilities is low, I'm working on the assumption that the decisions are going to be coming from Dick Cheney, Colin Powell et al. In general his advisors are a hawkish lot and this was exemplified when they pushed for a hard line against China when the spy plane crashed there.
This event gives Dubya the opportunity to seal his place in World History forever. He could be the President who Ended the Threat of World Terror. Or he could be The President who Started the Third World War. I don't think I'm being over-paranoid by saying that, but more of that later.
As a side issue, this cataclysm may see the end of the Son of Star Wars Defence Shield. That defence system is untried, has failed in all tests so far, and in any case wouldn't have stopped any part of yesterday’s horror. With luck, the money that they will save on that will go on a more rational defence system; lots more highly trained people. America has shown an over-reliance on gadgetry when it comes to military and intelligence matters. Yesterday has proven that, as yet, there is no substitute for trained personnel.
And what of the American people? I can't say for certain of course, but by now the shock and anguish at yesterday's events will be giving way to anger. I've already said what I had to say about that particular emotion and on a national scale it will be a truly frightening sight. And when the anger of a nation as powerful as America has to be vented by a leader as inept as Dubya then the world really should tremble. People will want vengeance (though I am heartened by some of the editorials in today's US papers. Many call on people to remember that by bombing Afghanistan to rubble they would be committing an atrocity against innocent people just as the terrorists did yesterday) and the cold satisfaction of knowing that those who did this are hurting as much as they are. The word "War" has been used more than once to describe how America will react to this. I said repeatedly yesterday that America has a clear policy on dealing with attacks on American Territory with weapons of Mass Destruction. A low yield nuclear weapon being fired at the approximate location of Osama Bin Laden (if it is indeed he behind this) is by no means out of the question (which is probably why Joanne's colleague thought I'd called about the end of the world yesterday...). After all, Afghanistan is sparsely populated, and Dubya has already said that America will make no differentiation between those who did this and those who shelter them.
This leads rather nicely on to the implications for the rest of the world. Simply put, the world is has changed for good. The very fabric of world politics is no longer the same, be it with the western world's relations with the Middle East, or ease of International Air Travel, make no mistake that things have changed. There seems to be a palpable sense of the world holding it's breath whilst the full horror of yesterday's attack sinks in. We'll hold our breath still longer whilst America considers it's response against an intangible enemy. There are those who say that America will be fully justified in turning Iraq and Afghanistan into nuclear polished glass. Those who do say that are no different to the fanatics who planned yesterday's terrorist action because they too had absolutely no thought as to the deaths of innocent people. By the same token, anyone who would condemn America for its desire for vengeance are equally as unrealistic. For all our European smugness about disasters in America (by which I mean the undercurrent of feeling that says "Now you know what it's like to feel fear of terrorism. Now perhaps you'll stop funding our terrorists".) we should understand the very real need for a visible act of vengeance.We should perhaps prepare ourselves for a response that will further change world history. I'm hung up on the fear of nuclear weapons. That is my particular nightmare and has been for over 15 years (although if I were the sort of person who puts any stock in prophecy I would say this; I've had nightmares about nuclear war almost every night since I was about 8 or 9. I hadn't had a full night’s sleep since I was at high school because of this. On Monday night I slept an undisturbed and dreamless sleep. Maybe I should start claiming to be Nostradamus or something....).
However, the US military has got all manner of new and scary toys that they can deploy. As of yesterday, all bets are off. We can no longer take it for granted that the tomorrow will be about as peaceful as today. That is not to say that an extraordinary act of retaliation is inevitable, but it is probable, and I think we'd all do well to remember that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)