Sneak peeks and worries
Mar. 16th, 2004 03:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
misscamThe Madrid bombing has made even Norwegians a bit edgy - our main train station was evacuated yesterday after the discovery of an abandoned suit case. After abot an hour, the bomb squad found out it only held clothes. Gah. The way the US seems to want to sell Norway as an 'ally' in Iraq (Bush undearest, we did *not* support the war and stop selling that we did!) I'm not surprised Norwegians are slightly on edge. It is still unimaginable that someone would strike at tiny, tiny unimportant Norway - but the unimaginable has happened before.
Not the most cheerful of thoughts, that.
******
It was, all in all, a spectacular wake leading into a spectacular party. Sure, there had been some ‘accidents’ of the not so accidental kind, but so was to be expected when staff and students gathered together.
Of course, there were some disagreements over what the wake was for and what the party was for. The students insisted the party was for celebrating the viewing of the third movie at last and the wake for the end of the movies. The staff held the opposite view. But since the party and the wake both had a lot to drink, this was easily smoothed over.
Jess did quite enjoy herself. First there had been the viewing itself, which had gone along swimmingly (and for the students, droolingly) until Denethor had attempted to torch the movie reels, citing defamation of character. While that was being cleared up, Tylliria had attempted to sneak up on Legolas – alas for her, an Elf in the darkness is another Elf alike and Fëanor was not an Elf easily amused.
With Tylliria tied up as a mini-Balrog ‘put the tail on the pig’ toy, the screening had continued and Jess had let her Inner Luster indulge in some serious Legolas Lusting. She figured it might knock it unconscious for the rest of the year. It was after all a dangerous movie for Inner Lusters. Ellie Dragonstar, who had occupied a seat nearby, had nearly gone comatose at Pippin’s adorable Woeful Singing O’Death. Nancey in the seat below had swooned over Frodo’s chest and dribbled on her shoes. Scott Dibler had dribbled on his shoes (and poor Emilee, in the seat below him) whenever Éowyn had passed by. All in all, it had been a great indulging of the more hormonal kind.
But like all things, the movie had come to an end and the Canon Characters had cheered and popped the champagne. And so the party (or wake, depending on one’s viewpoint) had started and soon moved to the great hall.
“Good party,” Kat remarked to Jess, attempting to open yet another bottle of wine.
“You’re just saying that because you got a clear view of Faramir,” Jess replied
“Shut up.”
“Nope.”
Kat just rolled her eyes, but not in particularly hostile way. “Why is Faramir talking to Sunsong anyway?”
“He wants all oils of any kind to be put under special security in the kitchen. I guess FaraFindel shouldn’t have tried to dump Extra Virgin Oil on him after the viewing. I heard him mutter angrily about it.”
“Ah.” Kat took a moment to sip from the bottle. “He was really, really, really hot with oil though.”
“He also really, really, really belongs to Éowyn, who is likely to roast you in Extra Virgin Oil if given the chance. Really sis, you could have picked a better Object O’Lusting,” Jess snorted.
“Hah. And Thranduil is just so kind towards those lusting after his son.”
“Good point. Is there anyone it’s safe to lust after?”
“The Witch-Wall,” Melje shot in, gliding up next to the sisters with a slight grimace. “Although I suppose that has its own dangers. Have any of you seen Rusco?”
“Last I saw her, she was drowning her sorrows of Elrohir not being in movie three by the tank of Durin’s Dwarven Daiquiri Draught,” Jess replied. “Speaking of drinking, where is all the tequila gone?”
No one had a chance to answer, as a hush fell over the crowd. Galadriel had stepped forward on the podium, looking grim.
“The world is changed. I feel it in the air. I feel it in the water. Much that once was, is lost, for few who now live bother to read the book. Movie three has come.”
******
Not the most cheerful of thoughts, that.
******
It was, all in all, a spectacular wake leading into a spectacular party. Sure, there had been some ‘accidents’ of the not so accidental kind, but so was to be expected when staff and students gathered together.
Of course, there were some disagreements over what the wake was for and what the party was for. The students insisted the party was for celebrating the viewing of the third movie at last and the wake for the end of the movies. The staff held the opposite view. But since the party and the wake both had a lot to drink, this was easily smoothed over.
Jess did quite enjoy herself. First there had been the viewing itself, which had gone along swimmingly (and for the students, droolingly) until Denethor had attempted to torch the movie reels, citing defamation of character. While that was being cleared up, Tylliria had attempted to sneak up on Legolas – alas for her, an Elf in the darkness is another Elf alike and Fëanor was not an Elf easily amused.
With Tylliria tied up as a mini-Balrog ‘put the tail on the pig’ toy, the screening had continued and Jess had let her Inner Luster indulge in some serious Legolas Lusting. She figured it might knock it unconscious for the rest of the year. It was after all a dangerous movie for Inner Lusters. Ellie Dragonstar, who had occupied a seat nearby, had nearly gone comatose at Pippin’s adorable Woeful Singing O’Death. Nancey in the seat below had swooned over Frodo’s chest and dribbled on her shoes. Scott Dibler had dribbled on his shoes (and poor Emilee, in the seat below him) whenever Éowyn had passed by. All in all, it had been a great indulging of the more hormonal kind.
But like all things, the movie had come to an end and the Canon Characters had cheered and popped the champagne. And so the party (or wake, depending on one’s viewpoint) had started and soon moved to the great hall.
“Good party,” Kat remarked to Jess, attempting to open yet another bottle of wine.
“You’re just saying that because you got a clear view of Faramir,” Jess replied
“Shut up.”
“Nope.”
Kat just rolled her eyes, but not in particularly hostile way. “Why is Faramir talking to Sunsong anyway?”
“He wants all oils of any kind to be put under special security in the kitchen. I guess FaraFindel shouldn’t have tried to dump Extra Virgin Oil on him after the viewing. I heard him mutter angrily about it.”
“Ah.” Kat took a moment to sip from the bottle. “He was really, really, really hot with oil though.”
“He also really, really, really belongs to Éowyn, who is likely to roast you in Extra Virgin Oil if given the chance. Really sis, you could have picked a better Object O’Lusting,” Jess snorted.
“Hah. And Thranduil is just so kind towards those lusting after his son.”
“Good point. Is there anyone it’s safe to lust after?”
“The Witch-Wall,” Melje shot in, gliding up next to the sisters with a slight grimace. “Although I suppose that has its own dangers. Have any of you seen Rusco?”
“Last I saw her, she was drowning her sorrows of Elrohir not being in movie three by the tank of Durin’s Dwarven Daiquiri Draught,” Jess replied. “Speaking of drinking, where is all the tequila gone?”
No one had a chance to answer, as a hush fell over the crowd. Galadriel had stepped forward on the podium, looking grim.
“The world is changed. I feel it in the air. I feel it in the water. Much that once was, is lost, for few who now live bother to read the book. Movie three has come.”
******
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-20 05:18 am (UTC)Problem with speaking up to loud is that the US then immidiately starts making bad jokes and boycott your wine. Freedom fries indeed. I saw the Shrub once again called Norway an ally in the 'war on terror' in his most recent speech. I swear, every time that man takes the word 'Norway' in his mouth, I can feel it being sullied. And of course, now American conservatives are telling Spain they let the terrorists win because they voted for a new anti-war government. Classy. The Spanish people voted out their previous pro-war government because it tried to exploit the tragedy, you stupid....!
See, this is why my government has been quiet in their opposition. You're loud, you get hassled, ridiculed and called allies of terrorists. As much as I wish my government would stand up loudly, I can understand why it has not. And Norway has a history of doing things the quiet way in the first place.
As Bush himself said 'you're either wit us or you're against us.' And believe me, the more he bullies, the angrier Europeans get. We remember all too well another bully and what he taught us. Aggressive warfare never goes anywhere good. And if Bush ever starts talking about needing 'Lebensraum', run for the hills.
A rather limp bush, maybe?
... with tentacles that sting.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-20 04:50 pm (UTC)(Minor nitpick: You said "to" instead of "too." That, to me, is almost as bad as the your/you're mistakes.)
Again, you touch on excellent points. You really should write into...somewhere where you'd get noticed. Not sure where that would be.
Alas, poor Spain, I knew thee well...okay, maybe not so well, but that's beside the point. Our bloody Garden Bush needs to take the middle road when it comes to allies, like he did for genetic research. (Allowed researches to use the existing strains of cells to research, but prohibited the making of new ones- but you probably new that.) I hate that he's got the "with me or against me" attitude- reminds me too much of my choir director. And, it's the entirely wrong way of going about taking care of this country. As much as he wants us to, not all of us (meaning every person on the planet) are going to have the same mindset about, say, a war that is already eating up billions of our hard-earned dollars and killing many (both Iraqi and American- and whoever else is over there) of our troops.
I think that our (as much as I hate to call it that) country needs a woman as president. Maybe then we'd have a little less egotistical bigotry going on. Not so much "I blew this up, so you all should praise me" kind of stuff.
Ah, the tenticles. Now that would be one interesting creature.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-23 07:40 am (UTC)Again, you touch on excellent points. You really should write into...somewhere where you'd get noticed. Not sure where that would be
*shrugs* Eh, there's plenty of people saying more or less the same as me in different words. A lot of them probably say it better. I suppose you don't hear that much of it in the US. When I stayed there, I found the lack of... well, information to the public a bit worrisome. I donæt know if it's an education thing or just the mindset of some Americans, but there seemed to be a gap of knowledge in some circles. And knowledge is needed to make an informed opinion and an informed opinion is the basis of a healthy democracy. Then you know what your opinion truly entails and what it might cause. Anyone can have an opinion, but an informed opinoin takes more effort. (Bush once said he never reads newspaper himself. He has his advisors read them and tell him what they say. Don't know about you, but that is not forming informed opinions to me.)
A woman president might do good - on the other hand, might not. Women can be as bad as the men -just sometimes in different areas. Norway's had a women PM and she made just as many mistakes as the boys. On the other hand, it will have a positive impact on gender equality and that the US could certainly need. I read somewhere that there was only 10 or 15 % women in Congress - that can hardly be good.
Now that would be one interesting creature
Yes indeedy. Wonder if it'll float... Maybe if one of its parents could float. I could test our PM and you could test your President. Be a shame if couldn't float, after all.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-22 10:17 pm (UTC)Granted, my news doesn't come from reliably unbiased sources like the BBC, and I'm by no means a conservative, but given how angry and shocked the Spanish people were, it makes sense to me that they would lash out at the existing government. The logic is simple enough and is a rather typical human emotional response, the faulty reasoning notwithstanding: "The terrorists threatened to retaliate against anyone who sided with the U.S. YOU put troops in Iraq. YOU supported the U.S. The terrorists made good on their threat. Therefore the attacks were YOUR fault".
That the people were screaming "murderers!" at the previous political leaders lends credence to the theory that that is EXACTLY why the Spanish voted out their pro-war leaders. And I'm not criticizing the people for that, but in light of the way everything happened, that was exactly the impression I got of how quickly the voters got rid of the pro-war government. Beyond being right or wrong, it's human nature to react the way they did. And I can't help but feel that they sent a very clear, very dangerous message to the terrorists when they did that.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-23 06:36 am (UTC)I don't know how closely you followed the aftermath of the Madrid bombings, but a lot of us here in Europe followed it damn close. If you did follow it, you might remember that the Spanish government at the time (from the PP party) claimed it was ETA, the Basque separtists. If it was ETA, said government would benefit. On the other hand, if it was al-Quaeda, the pro-war government would have a lot more to lose. So, straight after the bombing one of the ministers went out and said that it was *certainly* ETA. The government kept on claiming this up until the very day of the election. The PP PM had even personally phoned editors of the large newspaper to tell them it was ETA.
Then some Moroccans were arrested, and there were held several protests the night before accusing the PP of trying to use the tragedy for political gain. Hell, even some of the Spanish papers accused them of that. And several people interviewed as the polling progressed spoke of their anger at how the government had handled the crisis.
You also have to remember that when the election took place, it wasn't all that certain that it actually was al-Quaeda yet. Some were still claiming ETA, despite very strong doubts raised on that issue. It was by Sunday not clear if al-Quaeda was behind the attacks (although it started to look so with grim inevitability) but what had emerged, was the government's insistence that it was ETA, despite all appearing evidence to the contrary. If the government had not so vehemently tried to deny that possibility, I'm not sure they would have lost the election. Before the bombings, polls showed that the PP party would win an absolute majority. When the election was over, they'd got 38%. We're talking of a swing vote here of maybe 15%. And this at a time when responsibility of the bombings were not certain.
And a lot of Europe does not see the war in Iraq as a part of the 'war on terror'. 80-90% of Spaniards opposed the war. To most of Europeans, Iraq was a mistake. It hasn't decreased terror, but increased it. It has increased anger towards the US in the muslim worlds, thus also increased the breeding grounds for Islamic terrorists. This is how a lot of Europe feels. You might say that pulling troops out of Iraq is what the terrorists want, but you have to remember that 80-90% of the Spaniards *did not want them there in the first place*. To quote a poster I saw from a televised polling station: Your war, our dead. To see this just as Spaniards chickening out in the face of terrorism... well, a lack of looking at the whole picture, you might say. It's a lot more complicated than that. I believe it was more an anger vote, anger at the government for dragging them into a war Spaniards felt were wrong and anger perhaps even more so at the government for trying to use the tragedy to strengthen their position - as an ETA attack would have. Read some of the links below, and you'll see I'm not the only one who have thought in those lines.
I'm sure the terrorists are delighted with the election. I'm sure they're delighted Europe and the US have cracks in their relationship. I'm sure they're delighted over a lot of things because whatever they do, things change. Sometimes I think we give them what they want just by fighting back.
But anyway - you were asking how I arrived at said conclusion. Here are some links to BBC stories on it. You might not agree, but you might at least see this is not something pulled out of the blue. (You can always search other European broadcasters or newspapers as well. You will see many touch on the PP party's horrid, horrid handling of the tragedy and its impact.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3511540.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3512248.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509744.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3512894.stm
And as a bonus, in case you're unfamiliar with ETA - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3500728.stm (You might note the last paragraph)
Thanks for the links
Date: 2004-03-23 07:18 am (UTC)If you can tolerate another question, here's this:
I know how you feel about war and the death penalty already, so I would like to know what you feel the appropriate handling of these terrorists would be. I can see plainly the violence begets violence--every time we (the U.S.), or anyone else, goes after a group like al-Qaeda in order to exact revenge, doing so has the tendency to muster the resolve of those terrorists and win them support. I'm not sure if it's the action of going *after* the terrorists at all, or just the fact that President Bush did *everything* goddamn thing he could manage, wrong.
However, I don't see how a nation can justify *not* going to lengths to crush terrorists groups. Attempting to fight fire with fire might not do anything more than create an uncontrollable inferno, but at the same time, I don't see what pacifism will accomplish either. Admittedly, I was *raised* in a nation that teaches that pacificism amounts to rolling over to play dead and sending the message to terrorists that they can do exactly as they please.
I also understand that you differentiate between vengeance and justice. I am not against the death penalty, and really, I don't see how a group of people who slaughter innocents by the score can be punished with anything less than execution. What is the alternative? Locking them away and hoping that they stay put? It might simply be the bias of my upbringing, but I don't see that as the answer. This is not to get into a discussion of the pros and cons of the death penalty however, it's just me trying to figure out a few things. For one thing, the punishment that you consider to be revenge, is what I consider *justice*. If you would explain what the key differences there are that you believe creates that distinction, I'd appreciate it. I also would like you to, if you could, put yourself in the mindset of those who experienced 9/11, and those who experienced the Madrid bombings, and tell me if you can what the appropriate response to both events would have been. Like I said, I don't believe that Bush's handling of the murders was the best, but I really don't see how a staunch anti-war approach would have been any better.
How to fight terrorism? There's a question for the ages...
Date: 2004-03-23 08:41 am (UTC)Terrorism is a very tricky issue and obviously, no one can afford to do nothing. That way, they'll just shed more blood. I know this. Sometimes, fighting just becomes neccessary. When my country was invaded by Germans in WW2, we certainly fought back. I would have too. Sometimes, people just take the choice of war for you.
But there is a middle road here. I'm not saying pacifism is always the answer, but war isn't always either. I've notice that in certain parts of the US there is an 'either or' thinking. You're either a good or evil. You're either for war or against war. To quote Bush, 'you're either with us or against us'. I don't believe in that kind of thinking and quite frankly, I find it dangerous.
If you are indeed American, as I suspect you are, you were raised in a country that hasn't had a war on its own soil for quite some time. WW1 and WW2 were participated in yes, but distanly. Europe, on the other hand, saw both wars up close and personal. And after that, it's hard to believe war is always the answer. But WW2 was a neccessary war - but it became a neccessary war because of WW1, which was rather a pointless bloodshed, all in all. And European history is littered with wars. You see how this might cause Europe to think long and hard about going into wars? That is not the same as rolling over like 'cheese loving surrender monkey'or whatever the heck the Republicans insulted France with.
But to get back to the fight against al-Qaeda - terrorism is a different kind of battle. Finding terrorist cells and 'destroying' them is only a part of it. It's equally a battle of ideology. Al-Qaeda wants to destroy the modern secular (Western) society. They want to stop such a society from becoming an Arab reality. They see the 'Westification' of the world as a second Crusade. And so I believe that however much you fight al-Qaeda by force, they will be like the monster where you cut off one head and it grows two new ones. There was a survey done recently that said 60% or so of Pakistanis have a favourable impression of Osama bin Laden. 60%. That is a frightening number. And other Arabs countries had the same kind of tendency. Here is the real battlefield of al-Quaeda, in my opinion. What good is killing terrorists when you just make a new one out of his son or his daughter? I don't think all these Arabs are evil people just like I don't think all Germans were bad during WW2. There is a reason behind al-Qaeda, just like there is a reason behind ETA, behind IRA, beind Hamas. That doesn't make what they do right, but it is my belief that you cannot counter terrorism unless you somehow also counter the reason for it. I'm not talking about giving them what they want, but so much hatred and despair must come from somewhere. If you can do something about that, recruitment and support for organisations like al-Qaeda will fall. And then perhaps when you cut off one of their heads, a new one won't grow out.
In that vein, 'democracification' of the Middle East might actually be a good plan, but invading Iraq on flimsy excuses has done nothing to improve the standing of US in Islamic public opinion. And siding with Israel is doing even greater harm. I don't know how to counter this, but somehow, the US has to find a way.
I guess I'm saying that fighting fire with fire is no good when both have endless supply of blood willingly shed. I don't know enough about terrorism to give out an action plan or to know any answers. But I believe that in this war, it's a bit like WW1 and the trenches. Both are so buried down in their position that the loser will be whoever runs out of blood. And if we stop caring about sheding blood, we'll be no better than al-Qaeda. War should always be the last resort because it's terrible thing to kill another human being and more terrible still on such a large scale. I believe that. But as I said, sometimes war is forced upon you, as it was forced upon Norway in 1940.
That doesn't make me any less anti-war. I can understand why something is neccessary, but that doesn not mean I have to like it or embrace it.
(On vengeance and justice a bit later, as I need to eat dinner and catch up on the news.)