[tokyojoe]

Holy Shit! I was supposed to go there next week!!!! The toll is now at 170! Fucking terrorists.

[cstaylor]

Anyone think we're looking at the start of WW3?

[GuyJean]

Anyone think we're looking at the start of WW3?

Great. Another Muslim/Christian battle for the ages. Extremism sucks

I think I'll be crossing Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines off my travel list. The last time I went to Bali, I didn't like the energy much;
"You buy, yes?"
"No thank you"
"Yes, you buy"
"No"
"Yes, you buy now"
"Nahh"
"Yes, you buy"
"No"
"Rich American, you buy, yes"
"No"
"Yes, you buy"
"NO"
"YES"
"NO"
"YES"
"Nyeru to!!!" ('Get the f*ck away from me' in Balenese)

I loved the mountain village of Ubud, but that's about it. I never really felt 'at ease' with the way people looked at me or my girlfriend. In fact, the night after we left, there were riots at the Denpesar airport.

Stick with Thailiand. Buddhist terrorists only chant for money and wack you with a stick.

GJ

[GomiGirl]

OK will I get flamed for this - I don't care.

Watching CNN over the last few days regarding this terrible terrorist attack, everybody has been very careful about where to lay the blame. A FEW people have suggested that since George W has started to rattle the sabre in Iraq's direction, the extremists have RENEWED their plans against the US and her allies.

This to me suggests that if George W had been satisfied with simply bombing the crap out of Afganistan in retaliation without going on the offensive for some sort of personal crusade to stop people questioning his presidency then this bombing would not have happened.

Call me naive if you like, but as a non-american I have not blindly accepted the "virtues" of US foreign policies. C'mon the terrorists are not jealous of the US as people in their warm cosy living rooms have been told to believe, they are pissed as hell at being on the end of some dumb and anti-arab actions in the past.

Sombody has to put a stop to this madness. Offensives only cause retaliations which in turn causes retaliations. This is a ludicrous situation. To question the actions of the leaders is not being unpatriotic - it is infact the duty of free people to protect their own freedom. Saying, "You are with us or against us" is denying the freedom to think for yourselves by scaring us all into submission.

OK I am pissed that it was mainly Australians who were killed and injured and I have been to the Sari bar. People who go there are mainly backpackers and tourists from Australia looking for a cheap and fun holiday. Also I am pissed that when there has been previous trouble in the region - ie East Timor, it was left up to the Australians to take care of it and stop the genocide. The US were not interested in helping despite expecting the Australians to rally behind the US whenever and whereever was important on the US agenda. There is too much hypocrisy and too much insanity.

Put the egos away and start thinking as human beings again. War begets war. But there is also way too much money and egos at stake for people to act and think rationally.

uurrgghh

[cliffy]

Gomigirl you just stated almost exactly what I believe. The Bali bombing was a despicable act in which it was totaly aimed at civilians, mostly visitors to the country, in Nightclubs and bars enjoying themselves. NOT milltary or political targets but mainly young, budget holiday makers. Because of this I now have some very close friends and some family members on alert against an enemy that to publicise their belief that the world is unfair to them have in secret with no warning plan to and actualy kill innocents and hide their identity. Is this to get the world onside with them? Who are they? What Allows them to square this with their beliefs? What Belief allows the slaugter of people by other people with no punishment? Not Christianity, not Morman, not Islam (check it out it don't), Buddisim? No, What? I allow that my conjecture(?) of "the world is unfair to them" is still unproven but it is the only way I can in any way start to comprehend the action

[GomiGirl]

I have problems with the whole "them and us" thing. Just the same as it is hard for me to grasp and accept the soto/uchi thing in Japan. Sure I know what it is - safety in numbers - but I don't have to agree with it.

Throughout history people have formed groups for convenience and safety and defended the rights of that group and attacked other groups for perceived differences in values.

In terms of doing wrong there are no innocent parties on any side - except if you choose not to take a side. But it is the innocents who fall victim to the consequences of this herd mentality.

Again I sound naive but we aren't we all people...??? cut us we bleed.

Why in the name of civilisation have we become so uncivillised?

It makes me sad that we continue to hurt each other. Oh well, back to my Zen.....

[gomichild]

Well I ain't gonna be flaming you GomiGirl. I generally agree with what you said .

It was a terrible tragedy - and I must admit that I'm still in a bit of shock about it. As an Aussie myself I can't believe that something so tragic has happened so close to home - and to young Australians.

I'm also not sure about that "us and them" concept - but then I don't understand what motivates terrorists to make people suffer.

We all breathe the same air right? Aren't we all "us"?

[Ketou]

Time for the lap dog to get some stick it seems.

The insanity of all this is beyond comprehension. Religious and poltical ideologies are a total creation of ones own mind. For someone to kill another in an effort to secure a threat to their own illusions is pure insanity. Unfortunately the insane are in the majority. And until people can see through their own belief system then things will continue as is. This is not a global problem, it's a personal one.

[cstaylor]

...it's pretty obvious what these islamists want: complete removal of all western influences in their area. The group thought responsible for the Bali bombing is pushing for a division of Indonesia into an islamic state and a secular state; they want to be the Iran of the South Pacific. If it takes killing western civilians to get them out of the country, thereby weakening the secular government, these people will do whatever it takes.

Sorry, I don't buy the "oppression" bit. It's a ploy used by those behind the scenes to rally young muslims to their cause... that and the "look at all the beautiful virgins awaiting you in paradise". The oldsters just want their place in the sun, running the show from a pulpit instead of a legislature.

[kamome]

Maybe I'll get flamed for this, too but....

First, I want to say that Americans sympathize totally with Australians, who are going through the same kind of hell that we did after 9/11.

However, GomiGirl said:

Also I am pissed that when there has been previous trouble in the region - ie East Timor, it was left up to the Australians to take care of it and stop the genocide. The US were not interested in helping despite expecting the Australians to rally behind the US whenever and whereever was important on the US agenda. There is too much hypocrisy and too much insanity.

I'd like to raise a point here. Yes, America is guilty of showing hypocrisy in its foreign policy from time to time. But I'd like to point to another form of hypocrisy: after 9/11, the Australian public was generally unsupportive of America's campaign against the Taliban and Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan, even though the government was supportive. Now that this tragedy has struck, I'm hearing the same things from Australians that Americans were saying after 9/11.

Before the Bali bombing, it seems that many Australians did not perceive terrorism as a global threat, but rather an American problem that it was at least partially responsible for. Yet now that Australians have directly felt the effects of terrorism, their tune has completely changed. Isn't that a form of hypocrisy as well?

[GomiGirl]

Just so you know where I am coming from, I have dual citizenship with Aus and the UK and I live in Japan by choice. I am not aware of what the general feelings of Australians or the Brits were after 9/11 as I was here. All the communication I had with my friends was one of shock and horror of the attack. This I felt as strongly as if I had been born in the US... it was not about geography - rather humanity.

As a non-US-centric commentary, there is alot of global cynicism with regards to the current US adminstration. That is the truth - like it or not. Culturally, Australians will not follow blindly but unquestionable support was just demanded after 9/11 under threat of being excommunicated from the US - a long time ally. That was heavy handed and quite insulting to a rational person. The support was there until these bullying tactics were used. The support was and is still there from a regular citizen to regular citizen.. just because the leadership has been questioned, it does not dimish the support for the collective.

But also the East Timor memories were still fresh... Australia asked for support and were told that it was not the problem of the US despite the Aus support during every major conflict that the US has been involved with. The "friend in need" theory should run both ways but it didn't.

Add all these things up and you *haven't* got anti-american sentiments, just friends who are a little pissed at being shown such little respect.

Personally, sure, I was upset by the recent attack as I was after 9/11- but I didn't think then and I don't think now that the response should be "shoot first and justify it later". I don't think it is just a US problem - but bull-dozing the UN with regards to other issues but leveraging off the memories and sympathy after 9/11 is just increasing the problems. Sure the speech writer earned his salary that day, but it does not remove the underlying issues.

It is a tough situation - I don't agree that arguments be settled with munitions and definitely not with planes into buildings and I do not in any way believe that terrorism is the act of of a rational person. But what to do... how do you rationalise with an irrational group of extremists?

I do not pretend to have the answer. But this constant tit-for-tat involving the death of ordinary people is escalating rapidly and current wisdom is not helping. Rather I think it is adding fuel to the fire. But does taking the moral high ground just open the floodgates to chaos? I don't know!!!

This is not a problem for individual nations - but a global one. I have said it before, war affects regular people on both sides who had nothing to do with the initial causes. A small number of people damaging the lives of so many.

These are just my ramblings - I am only as well informed as the next person. I welcome to hear what others think.

[GuyJean]

As a non-US-centric commentary, there is alot of global cynicism with regards to the current US adminstration.

Global? How about internal US cynicism? There are MANY voices in the US. How about the poll (no, polls arent' science) where only 40% of Americans support a unilateral attack on Iraq?

The support was there until these bullying tactics were used.

I thought the bullying was aimed at borderline Arab states. Not longtime allies.. Don't take it personally.

Australia asked for support and were told that it was not the problem of the US despite the Aus support during every major conflict that the US has been involved with. The "friend in need" theory should run both ways but it didn't.

I'm pretty sure there was intelligence support from the US. Plus, having the US in Indonesia would've pissed off yet ANOTHER Muslim country because the 'US is there'. A complaint voiced by Been Laiden to justify his attacks on the US]It is a tough situation. I do not pretend to have the answer.[/quote]
That's why it's difficult to hear so many complaints with no apparent answers or ideas. I wish the world were as peaceful as middle-class hippies want it to be. The truth is brutal, and there will ALWAYS be strife.. I'm sorry to inform

But here are couple of my ideas for creating LESS strife:

1: Get rid of Sharon. He's worthless.
2: Remove the settlers. They can have their Hollywood homes in Hollywood.
3: Immediately start production of hybrid and hydrogen cars. No need for oil, no blood for oil.
4: Start building wind turbines and solar panels.
5: Get rid of Bush. He's close to worhless. I like a leader that's smarter than me.

I understand your frustration, GG, and I enjoy your posts.. Let's bounce around ideas

My 2 yen

GJ

[hanabi]

How about internal US cynicism? There are MANY voices in the US. How about the poll (no, polls arent' science) where only 40% of Americans support a unilateral attack on Iraq?

Egad, it's about time someone brought that up. And there's a lot of talk about making the politicians in Congress pay for passing the resolution come election day.

For any Americans who want to see who voted how, here are the
House and Senate (H.J.Res. 114) roll calls. Salon also has the text from California Rep. Pete Stark's statement to the House in opposition. And finally, be sure to check out Not in Our Name.

[Snappahead]

Well, hopefully this doesn't add any fuel to the brewing flames in this thread, but after reading the posts I felt I would like to comment.

I am an Australian, ex-military and spent almost a year and a half in East Timor. While Australia was the first country "in" East Timor in September 1999 (look at the map - easy to see why), within 2 weeks of the UN resolutions to enforce peace in East Timor, Dili harbour was filled with ships from not only Australia, but Italy, France, Portugal AND the USA. In fact a US destroyer that happened to be in the area was with the Australian ships HMAS Darwin and HMAS Success off the coast in International waters providing protection from day 1.

After a week or so, USS Cow Bay and USS Belleau Wood (both heavy lift, supply type ships) were anchored in Dili harbour providing logistic support. There was a continuing roster of visits by the US navy and Marines as ships transitted from Hawaii/San Diego on the way to the Gulf right up until the East Timorese Government took over administration (as there have been from many nations). While the US did not have "troops on the ground" there was a continued presence and support from the US during Australia's mission in East Timor. I had my first shower for 3 months and the opportunity to buy some junk food from the ships store on USS Bonhomme Richard when she was in Dili harbour.

Well, that is enough of a ramble on the US supporting us in East Timor. If you look at why we were in East Timor in the first place, the blame lies almost 100% with Australian foreign policy and greed for the riches of the Timor Gap. We (our government) agreed to look the other way when the Indonesians invaded in 1975 in exchange for a healthy slice of the rights to the resources located in the Timor Gap. According to international law, Australia has no (legal) claim whatsover to the gas and oil there, apart from it's agreement signed with Indonesia, which it coerced the East Timorese into maintaining after they gained their independance. The United States also let the Suharto goverment know they would not interfere with their invasion, due to concerns (shared by Australia, but outweighed significantly by the Timor Gap deal) that communists would take hold in East Timor after the vacuum left by the Portuguese, giving the USSR easy access to the strategic sea lanes in Indonesia and the South Pacific Ocean.

Gaisaradatsuraku - while it is a reality that the US is the only power in the world and Britain, Australia (and the rest of the democratic nations of the world) have been "hanging off their shirtails" as you put it, I think you need to look at it in perspective (as do other nations when criticising the US). The resources of America absolutely dwarf those of the rest of the world - well done to you guys in America. Personally I think a lot of the criticism levelled at the US by those in Australia and the UK is largely based on jelousy. However, I really don't think you can criticise Australia for failing to contribute to the USA. The population is under 1/10th the size of America, our Economy is dwarfed by the US - yet without fail we have been at America's side in every major conflict since WWII. Australia has not forgotten the the USA saved us from the Japanese. I lost an uncle in Korea, who died fighting alongside Americans, and my father was killed in Vietnam - also an American war. I was in the Persian Gulf for Desert storm, and many friends of mine have been alongside US servicemen throughout the world. We currently have 150 soldiers in Afghanistan - a small number comapared to America, but a large contributaion for us - again look at the comparisons in numbers for population and GDP.

As I said, I think some of the criticism aimed at America comes from jelousy, but some of it also comes from uninformed statements from Americans as well. Yes, you are the most powerful nation in the world, yes, you did help many countries in WWII - but I can assure you if the roles were reversed and some other (democratic) nation was in the position of the USA, they would do the same things.

The attack in Bali has shocked many Australians as they believed they were immune to terrorism. While I feel very sorry for the people that died (from every country), I think the Australian media is reacting out of proportion (as it always does) - I have seen a lot of dramatic articles about how the US media has snubbed Australia and this is "Australia's coming of age" etc...
Give me a break - it is a tragedy, but we should have seen it coming. While I could ramble on some more on that subject, I think I have gone on too much already. Thanks for reading if you got this far.

[cstaylor]

As I said, I think some of the criticism aimed at America comes from jelousy, but some of it also comes from uninformed statements from Americans as well. Yes, you are the most powerful nation in the world, yes, you did help many countries in WWII - but I can assure you if the roles were reversed and some other (democratic) nation was in the position of the USA, they would do the same things.

Hmmm... not sure about that. I seem to remember two democratic nations failing to do so after the first world war.

I agree that sharing a nationality with the men and women who rebuilt postwar Europe doesn't mean much, but don't go to the other extreme and ignore historical fact.

[ off topic ]
I can't understand why Gore came so close to winning when he had so much in his favor:
- a good economy
- far better speaking skills (can't someone do something about Bush's delivery? He's incredibly poor)
- a President that, for better or worse, was more loved than despised

I've heard a lot of noise about the Supreme Court, but should it have even come to that point? And now with the majority of Democrats caving in over the war resolution...

[GuyJean]

I can't understand why Gore came so close to winning when he had so much in his favor

It was those damn Nader-baters and hanging chads! Also, the pendulum was swinging conservative at the time.. Spoiled people get bored.

GJ

[cstaylor]

It was those damn Nader-baters and hanging chads! Also, the pendulum was swinging conservative at the time.. Spoiled people get bored

The green party had less that 4% of the vote. Granted, if Nader hadn't run, Gore would have squeaked by, but why wasn't it the landslide that Clinton received in '96 (I wouldn't be as worried if we had a President Dole instead of President Bush II)?

[kamome]

First, I have to commend Snappahead for an awesome post.

Also, I agree with CS about Bush. I am still confused about how he could have won the election, Florida notwithstanding. He is a complete idiot compared to Gore. I was glad to have left for Japan the day Bush was sworn into office--Alec Baldwin style.

It's also notable that the Supreme Court recently refused to hear that case concerning New Jersey's Democratic candidate for Senate, saying in essence that they shouldn't be getting involved in political issues. That's basically saying they also made a big mistake by hearing Gore v Bush. That case never should have gone to the Supreme Court. They violated long-settled jurisdictional rules by deciding what essentially was a political matter.

And now Bush has attempted to aggrandize more war powers than most of his predecessors--in my book, he's not legitimate enough of a leader to deserve such powers.