9/11 put into perspective

[cowudders14]

In the media frenzy following this "war on terror" etc, this website puts a bit of perspective on the whole thing...

Kinda scary, eh?

http://www.jimpix.co.uk/words/terror.asp

[arch13]

That's an interesting viewpoint from which to analyze.
I'll keep my politics to myself for now though.

[Tempboy]

Interesting. Never thought of it like that. Although maybe it's the political/economic/metal effect it has on people?

For example.. those few days after 9/11, air travel ceased as a precaution.. the US airline industry hasn't fully recovered from that yet, have they..

Anyway, that's just an example of why some ppl might find events like 9/11 more 'important'.

[lordjeebus]

The reason why people seem to fear terrorism more than much more common sources is that terrorism is much more unpredictable.

We can reasonably estimate, based on prior occurances, how many people will die this year from car accidents or cancer. But there is no good way to estimate how many will die of terrorism, because the terror many fear is the kind that could potentially kill millions in a way never before seen (bioweapons, etc.). Because people don't know if something like that will happen, or how likely it is to happen, they are more fearful.

Another difference is that there is an intentionality behind terrorist killings that is not found behind the more common sources of death. Because there is a group of people that want terrorist deaths to happen, many find them much more infuriating and fear-inducing.

[Lebell]

moved to politics.

[forseti-6]

Originally posted by lordjeebus
The reason why people seem to fear terrorism more than much more common sources is that terrorism is much more unpredictable.

I agree with this. You see what a big deal was made out of 9/11 - it was a big deal. However, how many people remember the Beiruit bombing of the Marines barracks? Guaranteed not as many people will remember 9/11 20 years from now. The thing is terrorism was expected in Beiruit then. Aside from the Oklahoma City bombings and the first World Trade Center bombings, there hadn't been a whole lot of terrorist attacks. (Note I consider McVeigh a terrorist, though some might just call it a "crime"). In Israel, where terror is a daily occurance, people have an easier time to move on.

Sort of an off topic example - When Mark McGwire broke Roger Maris's homerun record of 30+ years, he got a ton of attention throughout the campaign. When Barry Bonds broke McGwire's record only a few years later, a lot fewer people cared. It's the "been there done that" factor.

[Strange Famous]

More Iraqi's were killed by Allied bombing than American's klilled in the WTC attack, so why dont people talk about the war on Iraq as a terrinle tragedy and a horrific attack?

The victims are invisible sometimes I guess, especially if they happen to have brown skin or speak a different language to you.

[TFPJim]

Hello,

as the person who wrote the piece under discussion I've been interested to hear what people think about the subject.

Just on thing that jumped out at me:

Another difference is that there is an intentionality behind terrorist killings that is not found behind the more common sources of death.

I don't agree with that. It's just that the acceptable face of seemingly respectable governments here in the UK and US can get away with far, far more than terrorists ever have done, or will do. Such is the pervasive slant in mainstream reporting that we as a society are led to dismiss the attrocities carried out by our governments, and instead focus on the seemingly bizarre and fanatical obsessions of a bunch of foreigners.

Arms manufacturers, generally seen as perfectly legitimate businesses, make products which are designed to kill people. Surely there is a totally transparent 'intentionality' behind the killings which happen as a direct result of the sales of the products these companies produce.

While the companies themselves are not doing the killing, they are making the deaths more likely. What is even more grotesque is that governments, such as mine here in the UK will approve of export contracts to countries with horrendous human rights records, because big business wins the day, and the call for profit is more persuasive than the call for peace. How else can you explain that in the same year that Saddam Hussein gassed civilians at Halabja, UK export credits to Baghdad rose from £175 million in 1987 to £340 million in 1988?

Are you trying to argue that the corporations who profit from making cigarettes are not aware of the fact that tobacco is the only legally available consumer product which kills people when it is used entirely as intended?

How can manufacturers of alcohol not know about the far reaching fallout that results from the massive consumption of alcohol that occurs in even the UK alone?

Those are my thoughts...

Jim

[Ustwo]

Some people haved lived comfortably too long. I'd like for you anti-western whiners to go spend a few months living in Iran (or the former Iraq if that were possible) and THEN come here and tell us how evil the west is.

[lordjeebus]

Originally posted by jimriggott
I don't agree with that. It's just that the acceptable face of seemingly respectable governments here in the UK and US can get away with far, far more than terrorists ever have done, or will do.

I should have added that I do not agree with these lines of thinking -- I was trying to describe reasons why other people weigh death by terrorism so much above many other forms of death. I was mainly talking about accidental death but I think that many people don't consider state-sponsored killing of people (governments or corporations) because they are seen as unintentional side effects of other endeavors (ie. the US government wouldn't mind if civilians didn't die in their bombing campaigns and killing them is not its direct intention. Nor is it the direct intention of a tobacco company to kill its customers). Or they are simply unaware of the number of people overseas who die as a result of US/UK policy.

I personally am not one of these people so I can't really answer the questions you've presented.

[Lebell]

Think people.

There is a reason it is called terrorism.

[Sparhawk]

I like the way that numbers can speak so much more eloquently than words sometimes.

[Tophat665]

That's one way to look at it. I agree with a lot of it. I also think that it takes a very complex system and reduces it to a simplicity that is a bit deceptive.

Lebell, liked the Addams family, did you?

[SLM3]

I've always believed that if, say, AIDS were to hit the West the same way it affects Africa we'd have a cure the next day. Out of sight, out of mind. 9/11 hit home and that is why we're supposed to care. It's provided a context to carry out actions that would have been much harder to justify before, so we care. It's because people should die over there, not here.

What is terrorism, anyways? It's a construct nowadays, used by anyone to justify anything against anyone else. It's a useless term. It implies evil and only evil, negating even the mere opportunity for discussion.

Perhaps people don't think of the barracks bombing in Lebanon anymore because you can't put the same innocent spin on it. The "peacekeepers" picked a side, shot their guns (big, big guns at that) and paid the price.


SLM3

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Tophat665


Lebell, liked the Addams family, did you?

You just noticed?

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by SLM3


What is terrorism, anyways? It's a construct nowadays, used by anyone to justify anything against anyone else. It's a useless term. It implies evil and only evil, negating even the mere opportunity for discussion.

Yes thats wonderful, but you target civilians for the sake of targeting civilians you are a terrorist. War is dirty and civilians always die, but its the intent where you find the evil.

[SLM3]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Yes thats wonderful, but you target civilians for the sake of targeting civilians you are a terrorist. War is dirty and civilians always die, but its the intent where you find the evil.

You've proved my point. Targeting civilians for the sake of targeting civilians? If we think like that then what is there to discuss? What are the political causes/implications of the act? What are the root factors behind it? When you say killing for the sake of killing, you rule out any sort of discussion, and that's the kind of closed-mindedness that has led the way these past few years. No group is targeting civilians for the sake of targeting civlians. Your definition of terrorism is useless. We should really refer to it as political violence.


SLM3

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Terrorists are cowards cause they target civilians thinking it will further there political message. The motivation never really changes, its always politics.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by SLM3
You've proved my point. Targeting civilians for the sake of targeting civilians? If we think like that then what is there to discuss? What are the political causes/implications of the act? What are the root factors behind it? When you say killing for the sake of killing, you rule out any sort of discussion, and that's the kind of closed-mindedness that has led the way these past few years. No group is targeting civilians for the sake of targeting civlians. Your definition of terrorism is useless. We should really refer to it as political violence.


SLM3

If you want to talk, don't kill civilians on purpose. You think you get to blow up a bus full of people, including children or a pizza stand and then we should talk and discuss?

[SLM3]

Interesting how you start the process with the blowing up of a bus or a pizza stand. I'd rather start the process a couple steps before that, looking at what led to that bus or that pizza stand being blown up in the first place.

Stop trying to cure the symptoms.


SLM3

[asterjolly]

similarly, a post on everything2 concerning sep. 11:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1189711

[madp]

Originally posted by SLM3
Interesting how you start the process with the blowing up of a bus or a pizza stand. I'd rather start the process a couple steps before that, looking at what led to that bus or that pizza stand being blown up in the first place.

Stop trying to cure the symptoms.

SLM3

I don't believe anyone is suggesting anything of the sort. Regardless of the "righteousness," or lack thereof, of the religious or political motives behind terrorist tactics, the tactics cannot be rewarded.

If the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is representative, those who perpetrate terrorism have not been amenable to reasonable compromise. Most "every day" Israelis and Palestinians would have signed off on more than one of the previous peace proposals. Until the extremists on both sides of the fence are dealt with, you cannot effectively deal with the underlying issues imo (mostly because the terrorsits don't really want the issues resolved, because it is these very issues which give them their power).

[onetime2]

There is absolutely an intentionality as lordjeebus put it behind the terrorist attacks that isn't present in the "normal" deaths occuring on a daily basis. To equate the manufacture of guns with the direct action of murdering civilians for a political cause is ridiculous.

[matthew330]

I'd rather start the process a couple steps before that, looking at what led to that bus or that pizza stand being blown up in the first place.

.....as long as the point at which you stop going back, places blame squarely on America.

[Conclamo Ludus]

Originally posted by madp
I don't believe anyone is suggesting anything of the sort. Regardless of the "righteousness," or lack thereof, of the religious or political motives behind terrorist tactics, the tactics cannot be rewarded.

If the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is representative, those who perpetrate terrorism have not been amenable to reasonable compromise. Most "every day" Israelis and Palestinians would have signed off on more than one of the previous peace proposals. Until the extremists on both sides of the fence are dealt with, you cannot effectively deal with the underlying issues imo (mostly because the terrorsits don't really want the issues resolved, because it is these very issues which give them their power).

Very well put. Step One, stop the bombs from blowing you up. Step Two, attempt to understand why they were blowing you up in the first place and address any issues you may find. When someone is attempting to kill you with a bomb, they have shown you they have no desire to be understood. They have given up on understanding and political methods. They are showing you that they no longer care what you think, and simply want to destroy you and your political process. You cannot apply understanding to a process that is simply intent on destroying you. By the time you get done trying to understand it, you've been blown sky-high.

/end really simplified version.

[Bookman]

Originally posted by SLM3
You've proved my point. Targeting civilians for the sake of targeting civilians? If we think like that then what is there to discuss? What are the political causes/implications of the act? What are the root factors behind it? When you say killing for the sake of killing, you rule out any sort of discussion, and that's the kind of closed-mindedness that has led the way these past few years. No group is targeting civilians for the sake of targeting civlians. Your definition of terrorism is useless. We should really refer to it as political violence.


SLM3

Exactly. The terrorised have mastered the art of victimizing themselves while pointing out the culprits who are most likely their sworn enemy.
Its a destructive cycle.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by SLM3
Interesting how you start the process with the blowing up of a bus or a pizza stand. I'd rather start the process a couple steps before that, looking at what led to that bus or that pizza stand being blown up in the first place.

Stop trying to cure the symptoms.


SLM3

Because in this case they want the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, and not peace.

If you want to blame something blame, blame Exodus.

Some people can not be reasoned with. I can understand their motivation, but if their goal is not compatible then its to bad.

[Lebell]

Unfortunately that is true.

Many Palestinian radicals have vowed not to stop until Israel is destroyed.

How do you negotiate a way out of that?

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Lebell
Unfortunately that is true.

Many Palestinian radicals have vowed not to stop until Israel is destroyed.

How do you negotiate a way out of that?

What is the difference between this and Israel's moves to capture the land of Palestine. I know this fight is ages old, but what is the fundamental difference?
One has armies and the other has rocks and strap on bombs.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally posted by Bookman
What is the difference between this and Israel's moves to capture the land of Palestine. I know this fight is ages old, but what is the fundamental difference?
One has armies and the other has rocks and strap on bombs.

So, what's the answer then? Just let them have at each other until one side or the other has been eradicated from the face of the earth? Neither side is going to let their respective "extremists" be dealt with, so that an amiable solution can be found. If it were that simple, you would be reading about the Middle East Conflict in an ancient history textbook.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Bookman
What is the difference between this and Israel's moves to capture the land of Palestine. I know this fight is ages old, but what is the fundamental difference?
One has armies and the other has rocks and strap on bombs.

The difference is that all the lands Isreal currently occupies were captured in wars that were started by their Arab neighbors.

Various Israeli administrations have offered to trade back land for peace treaties with their neighbors, offers that have been rejected by Syria, and the Palestinians. (Israel now enjoys peace with Jordan and Egypt.)

Unfortunately for the Palestinians they have allowed radical elements to harden the Israeli public while rejecting each offer given.

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Lebell
The difference is that all the lands Isreal currently occupies were captured in wars that were started by their Arab neighbors.

Various Israeli administrations have offered to trade back land for peace treaties with their neighbors, offers that have been rejected by Syria, and the Palestinians. (Israel now enjoys peace with Jordan and Egypt.)

Unfortunately for the Palestinians they have allowed radical elements to harden the Israeli public while rejecting each offer given.

Wars or reactions to suicide bombings?

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Bookman
Wars or reactions to suicide bombings?

He's referring to the 6-Day War and the Yom Kippur War.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Wars ranging from the war for independence 1949, Sinai War in 1956, Six day War in 1967 (preemption by Israel), Yom Kippur in 73', and The Lebanon campaign in 1982. These were actual wars. Israel really hasn't started taken action against Palestinians until the Infitida's began in 88' (think thats when). Also you can throw in various campaigns waged from Jordan/Syria/Lebanon under the banner of the PLO in between all of that and sometime thereafter.

[TFPJim]

It is a standard response to say that Palestinians want to destroy Israel. Of course there are some hard liners who wish this was the case, but they do not speak for the ordinary Palestinians.

There are also many Israelis who do not agree with the current brutal treatment being meted out to the Palestinians, who feel that it will do nothing to forward the move to an eventual peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. This is evidenced by the growing number of 'refuseniks'. These are Israeli soldiers who have refused to serve as soldiers in the Occupied Territories for the Israeli Defence Force, as they feel it is completely immoral and will not help anyone. Five of these men have now been jailed for a year for taking a conscientious stance against their superiors.

These two excellent articles are proof if proof were needed that something needs to be resolved to stop what is happening in Israel.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...22&ItemID=4840
http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/...astructure.cfm

This article is a letter from Eitan Ronel, a former Lieutenant Colonel who has returned his rank to the Israeli Army Chief of Staff in a public letter, saying "A state whose army breaks up civilian demonstrations with live fire is not a democratic state. An army that educates its soldiers that it is possible to contemplate such a crime has lost [sight of its] limits…
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...22&ItemID=4817

Recently 22 year old International Solidarity Movement activist Tom Hurndall died after being shot by an IDF soldier in April 2003. He had been in a coma since then, and died on January 13th. A press release from Tom's family (http://www.tomhurndall.co.uk/) notes that the soldier was sniping using a telescopic sight and hit Tom in the forehead, suggesting that a charge of attempted murder would be more appropriate than a charge of aggravated assault.

I think that it is wrong to kill civilians wherever they are - by being pro Palestinian does not mean I agree with the concept of suicide bombing.

I feel that Sharon's response to the Palestinians mirrors Bush's war on Terror. When something awful happens, like 9/11 or a suicide bombing, there is no effort made on behalf of Bush or Sharon to try to understand what may be causing people to do take such drastic actions. Instead they react to violence with harsher, more overwhelming violence, which only worsens the very conditions which caused those who carried out their suicide bombings in the first place.

I really can't imagine life for those in the Occupied Territories. If I had seen my brothers, friends, relatives being routinely killed and humiliated, if my every journey was a trial, if the civil and administrative infrastructure which surrounded me had been systematically gunned, bulldozed, shot at, destroyed I would feel cut adrift, hopeless, angry, and if I had no work, and could not move around freely, and I saw no hope in life, I cannot really imagine how I would feel. What about you?

It is interesting that often when the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is raised that people often complain that the Palestinians have rejected offers from Isreal to trade back land. The last time this occurred, via Barak's 'generous' offer, people felt the Palestinians were wanting to have their cake and eat it, and that they were foolhardy to reject it. This article on the veteran Israeli peace activist Uri Avenery's site Gush Shalom gives some information that may help us understand why the Palestinians were not so keen to sign on the dotted line:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html

How strange, that during periods when only Palestinians are killed, that the world looks on and calls such times 'periods of calm'? Again, read this article http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...22&ItemID=4840 and ask yourself if the Palestinians would be afforded such nonchalance from the global community while they tried to do the same to Israeli towns. How can it be that such horrific, unbridled violence can be meted out against the Palestinians with barely a mention on the mainstream news?

[Bookman]

Originally posted by jimriggott
It is a standard response to say that Palestinians want to destroy Israel. Of course there are some hard liners who wish this was the case, but they do not speak for the ordinary Palestinians.

There are also many Israelis who do not agree with the current brutal treatment being meted out to the Palestinians, who feel that it will do nothing to forward the move to an eventual peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. This is evidenced by the growing number of 'refuseniks'. These are Israeli soldiers who have refused to serve as soldiers in the Occupied Territories for the Israeli Defence Force, as they feel it is completely immoral and will not help anyone. Five of these men have now been jailed for a year for taking a conscientious stance against their superiors.

These two excellent articles are proof if proof were needed that something needs to be resolved to stop what is happening in Israel.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...22&ItemID=4840
http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/...astructure.cfm

This article is a letter from Eitan Ronel, a former Lieutenant Colonel who has returned his rank to the Israeli Army Chief of Staff in a public letter, saying "A state whose army breaks up civilian demonstrations with live fire is not a democratic state. An army that educates its soldiers that it is possible to contemplate such a crime has lost [sight of its] limits…
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...22&ItemID=4817

Recently 22 year old International Solidarity Movement activist Tom Hurndall died after being shot by an IDF soldier in April 2003. He had been in a coma since then, and died on January 13th. A press release from Tom's family (http://www.tomhurndall.co.uk/) notes that the soldier was sniping using a telescopic sight and hit Tom in the forehead, suggesting that a charge of attempted murder would be more appropriate than a charge of aggravated assault.

I think that it is wrong to kill civilians wherever they are - by being pro Palestinian does not mean I agree with the concept of suicide bombing.

I feel that Sharon's response to the Palestinians mirrors Bush's war on Terror. When something awful happens, like 9/11 or a suicide bombing, there is no effort made on behalf of Bush or Sharon to try to understand what may be causing people to do take such drastic actions. Instead they react to violence with harsher, more overwhelming violence, which only worsens the very conditions which caused those who carried out their suicide bombings in the first place.

I really can't imagine life for those in the Occupied Territories. If I had seen my brothers, friends, relatives being routinely killed and humiliated, if my every journey was a trial, if the civil and administrative infrastructure which surrounded me had been systematically gunned, bulldozed, shot at, destroyed I would feel cut adrift, hopeless, angry, and if I had no work, and could not move around freely, and I saw no hope in life, I cannot really imagine how I would feel. What about you?

It is interesting that often when the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is raised that people often complain that the Palestinians have rejected offers from Isreal to trade back land. The last time this occurred, via Barak's 'generous' offer, people felt the Palestinians were wanting to have their cake and eat it, and that they were foolhardy to reject it. This article on the veteran Israeli peace activist Uri Avenery's site Gush Shalom gives some information that may help us understand why the Palestinians were not so keen to sign on the dotted line:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html

How strange, that during periods when only Palestinians are killed, that the world looks on and calls such times 'periods of calm'? Again, read this article http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...22&ItemID=4840 and ask yourself if the Palestinians would be afforded such nonchalance from the global community while they tried to do the same to Israeli towns. How can it be that such horrific, unbridled violence can be meted out against the Palestinians with barely a mention on the mainstream news?

To agree & disagree..the Terror war tactics are very old. Secondly...I do not think that groups like Hamas work with Greater Palestine in mind. These people are directed and funded..but not by Palestinians. @ least that is my opinion.

[mbchills]

interesting site.