Here is an interesting article on the world post 9/11, which was published in Spiked magazine today. Please note that the author is known for having a left-wing views, in case you were wondering about his politics, but that shouldn't detract from what is, IMO, an insightful piece.
One virtue of war is that it often provides society with an unusual degree of clarity about political issues. War tempts us with an irresistibly simple choice between Them and Us, enemy and friend, wrong and right, annihilation or survival. That kind of thinking came very easily during the Cold War. Every schoolboy knew that They – the so-called Evil Empire – were hellbent on destroying Us and our democratic way of life.
That was then, when it was clear who our friends and enemies were. The remarkable thing about the post-9/11 decade is that those old phrases about ‘them’ and ‘us’ no longer have much meaning. How can society make sense of global conflict when governments seem to lack a language through which to interpret it? A few weeks after the destruction of the World Trade Center, President George W Bush asked a question that has proved unanswerable: ‘Why do they hate us?’ One reason why the US government has failed to answer that question is because the couplet ‘they’ and ‘us’ lacks meaningful moral contrast today. Before you can give a satisfactory reply to Bush’s question, you have to answer the logically prior question of who ‘they’ are, and who ‘we’ are. And after 10 years of linguistic confusion, Western governments appear to have made no headway in resolving that quandary.
Experience shows that when the meaning of ‘they’ and ‘us’ is self-evident, there is no need to pose morally naive questions about the issues at stake in a conflict. Roman emperors confronted with invading hordes of Vandals did not need to ask why they hated Pax Romana. Neither US president Franklin D Roosevelt nor British prime minister Winston Churchill felt it necessary to ask why the Nazis detested their way of life. Nor was that question asked by Western leaders in relation to the Kremlin during the Cold War. In all of those cases, the battle lines were reasonably clear, and so were the issues and interests at stake.
Since 9/11, it has proven increasingly difficult to grasp and characterise the interests – geopolitical or otherwise – in a variety of global conflicts and wars. It is far from evident what purpose is served by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Such interventions frequently appear to have an arbitrary, even random quality. One day, officials in Whitehall are dishing out PhDs to Gaddafi’s children; the next day, NATO’s airplanes are bombing targets in Tripoli to teach Gaddafi a lesson. These foreign adventures make little sense from a geopolitical point of view. There is no equivalent of a Truman doctrine or even a Carter doctrine today. Ronald Reagan was the last US president to put forward a foreign policy doctrine that could be characterised as coherent. Although Bush’s ‘war on terror’ was periodically flattered with the label ‘doctrine’, in truth that so-called war was a make-it-up-as-you-go-along set of responses, detached from any coherent expression of national interest.
The main achievement of the Western, principally Anglo-American response to 9/11 has been to unravel the existing balance of power in the Middle East and in the region surrounding Afghanistan. But this demise of the old order has not been followed by the ascendancy of any stable alternative. In such circumstances, it is difficult to claim that these interventions have served the interests of their initiators. Moreover, the incoherent nature of such foreign policy has, if anything, undermined domestic support for it. These wars have little populist appeal and they do little to bind people together. These are military conflicts detached from people’s lives, which is why we are confronted with a very interesting situation where there is neither enthusiasm for foreign ventures, nor war-weariness.
A war in search of a name
One of the most remarkable features of the post-9/11 landscape is that, after 10 years of conflict, there is no real public appetite for evaluating what has happened. Consequently, all the fundamental questions normally posed by a war are being evaded rather than answered. Who is winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? What are the objectives of the occupying forces? And as they begin to wind down their activities and withdraw, what have they actually achieved? These interventions, as well as more minor episodes such as the attack on Libya, lack any clear political signposts. They are wars without names. They are directed at unspecified targets and against an enemy that cannot easily be defined.
The failure of language is most powerfully symbolised by the continuing reference to 9/11. Why rely on two numbers to serve as the representation of a historic moment? No one refers to the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 as 7/12, nor was the war against Japan coded in such euphemistic terms. The principal reason for labelling significant violent episodes as 9/11 or 7/7 is to avoid having to account explicitly for these events or to give them meaning. The preference for numbers rather than words exposes a sense of anxiety about the events, and an inability to communicate any lessons to the public.
The absence of a language through which to account for some key events of the twenty-first century means that rhetoric has taken on an unprecedented significance in the post-9/11 era. Consider the importance that New York Times columnist Roger Cohen attached to the new language adopted by the Obama administration following its successful elimination of Osama bin Laden earlier this year. ‘This is a triumphant day for a young American president who changed policy, retiring his predecessor’s horrible misnomer, the Global War on Terror, in order to focus, laser-like, on the terrorists determined to do the United States and its allies harm.’
So what is Obama’s laser-like linguistic alternative to Bush’s ‘horrible misnomer’? A memorandum sent to Pentagon staff members in March 2009 stated that ‘this administration prefers to avoid using the term “Long War” or “Global War on Terror” [GWOT]’. It advised Pentagon staff to use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO)’ instead. Whatever the merits of this name might be, they have nothing to do with clarity. Indeed, if anything, OCO is even more mystifying to normal human beings than GWOT. For all its faults, at least ‘Global War on Terror’ is comprehensible to someone with a basic grasp of the English language – which is more than can be said for OCO. Even someone with a PhD in linguistics is likely to feel challenged when asked to explain the precise meaning of a ‘contingency operation’.
Throughout the past decade, the correction of official language and the invention of new phrases have been flourishing enterprises. In his first speech as head of the UK’s national security intelligence agency, MI5, in November 2007, Jonathan Evans pleaded with newspaper editors to avoid using words that could help the enemy. He said we must ‘pay close attention to our use of language’ and avoid words that encourage the association of terrorism with Islam, since that could undermine the government’s ability to win the hearts and minds of Britain’s Muslim communities. Soon after he made that statement, it was reported that officials were ‘rethinking’ their approach to the terrorism problem and ‘abandoning what they admit has been offensive and inappropriate language’. The admission by UK officials that they had been using inappropriate language betrayed a palpable sense of disorientation in Whitehall. We were assured that ministers would stop using the phrase ‘war on terror’ and would never refer to the post-9/11 threat as a ‘Muslim problem’.
Officials have continually altered the language they use to describe the post-9/11 war without a name. ‘We strongly urge the government to abandon talk of a “war on terror”’, demanded a report on the issue of homegrown terrorism in the UK. At times, the BBC has seemed very linguistically challenged and has been at a loss to know when the use of words like ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’ is appropriate. ‘The value judgements frequently implicit in the use of the words “terrorist” or “terrorist groups” can create inconsistency in their use or, to audiences, raise doubts about our impartiality’, stated the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The European Union has also become obsessed over the past 10 years with not using words that could give the slightest hint of associating Islam with terrorism. Consider the guidelines issued by EU officials in April 2006, on the difficult question of what to call the enemy. The guidelines counselled against using the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ in favour of the Orwellian-sounding phrase ‘terrorists who abusively invoke Islam’. The invention of this term was part of the EU’s project of constructing a ‘non-emotive lexicon for discussing radicalisation’.
It is important to recall that even before the Obama presidency, Washington was painfully aware of its linguistic deficit in relation to 9/11. During Bush’s second term (2004-2008), the then US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld advocated replacing GWOT with GSAVE: ‘global struggle against violent extremism’. Bush rejected this Rumsfeldian formulation, but not because he wasn’t open to adopting new phraseology. Indeed, Bush was quite prepared to concede that he had got his lines mixed up after the events of 11 September. ‘We actually misnamed the war on terror’, he said in August 2004. Without a hint of irony he added that ‘it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world’. Funnily enough, that snappy turn of phrase was not adopted as a new name for the post-9/11 conflict.
In the very attempt to rectify the ‘misnaming’ of a war, Bush exposed the poverty of the intellectual resources with which the battle against terror is being fought. It has become clear that the confusion lies not just with the occasional malapropism, but with the entire script. The constant display of verbal acrobatics is testimony to the poverty of ideas underpinning strategic thinking in the post-9/11 era. And that is possibly the greatest threat to have emerged over the past decade. It also provides an answer to what ought to be the most fundamental question about this era: ‘How could our leaders get it so wrong, so often?’
The damage caused by terrorist violence in New York, Bali, Madrid, London and Mumbai can be fixed relatively easily. The last decade has shown that despite its capacity to inflict serious harm and damage on its target population, terrorism cannot triumph. What can prove to be far more damaging, however, is an incoherent and ill-thought-through response to terrorism. So what is it that we should really worry about 10 years into GWOT or GSAVE or OCO?
Probably the most negative consequence of 9/11 is that far too many Western governments have allowed themselves to be overwhelmed by this event, to such an extent that they perceive it to be the defining moment of the twenty-first century. Such defensive and reactive posturing has encouraged the implementation of policies that institutionalise a sense of uncertainty, rather than making society feel more confident. It is about time we all moved on and stopped using 9/11 as a global displacement activity. There are far more important challenges facing humanity than fighting a war so pointless that we can’t even give it a name.
Please remember that for many dakka members and lurkers this is a highly emotive subject.
Please be polite and discuss the issue calmly and with a minimum of provocation.
I certainly agree that the various conflicts ahve forced the government and society to really come up with new words, bring older words into the fore (terrorism, for example, certainly existed, but nowadays it's basically a household word)k and re-assign definitions of words that are currently being used. It's a different time than before, a time of globalization.
In gaming terms, the US government, and indeed most western governments, are playing as if they're in a 1v1-- when we're essentially playing free for all with military, economic, and political conflicts happening between enemies, neutrals, and allies.
Probably the most negative consequence of 9/11 is that far too many Western governments have allowed themselves to be overwhelmed by this event, to such an extent that they perceive it to be the defining moment of the twenty-first century. Such defensive and reactive posturing has encouraged the implementation of policies that institutionalise a sense of uncertainty, rather than making society feel more confident
I would feel more confident if we bombed the gak out of someone else!
I would argue that this geo-political void stretches further back than 9/11 - ten years prior with the end of the Cold War and the uncertainty surrounding the 'new world order.'
Maybe this is the reason why the rise of China is being talked up as a potential rival to Western hegemony, as it fits neatly into the Us Vs them mentality.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Please remember that for many dakka members and lurkers this is a highly emotive subject.
Please be polite and discuss the issue calmly and with a minimum of provocation.
Dang... Dakka Mods; like Minority Report, but with warnings.
9/11 was a triumph in the use of the visual medium. The images of the planes hitting the towers and the subsequently collapse "demanded" a strong reaction.
Flashman wrote:9/11 was a triumph in the use of the visual medium. The images of the planes hitting the towers and the subsequently collapse "demanded" a strong reaction.
Surely the mass murder was what demanded the reaction mate?
I was at work at the time, I was sat in a classroom at CTCRM (Commando Training Centre Royal Marines) and one of the lads came in and said "Some fethers just dropped the twin towers!"
We knew we were going to war right then. I dont think the visiual medium was that important, I mean, sure it might have drawn instant knee jerk shrieks of "Kill em all!" from people, but the hard fact demanded the reaction. If 3000 citizens get murdered with an anthrax bomb at night, your not going to see as much. Just the headlines on the news and the facts.
But were still gonna feth the perpetrator's up.
Well.. or at least some people that were involved in some slight way anyways. Either way is good for me.
There was a documentary on a few days ago about 9/11 and what all the big wigs did. When GWB got on air force 1 and stopped for supplies, they got 15 cases of budweiser. PARTAY
Flashman wrote:9/11 was a triumph in the use of the visual medium. The images of the planes hitting the towers and the subsequently collapse "demanded" a strong reaction.
Surely the mass murder was what demanded the reaction mate?
Yes, but had 9/11 just been the Pentagon and Flight 93, I doubt we'd be at the same place we are now, even if the death toll had been similar.
I'd also argue that there are many attrocities of a similar number or higher to which nobody bats an eyelid.
There are definitely attrocities that happen to which nobody bats an eyelid. Or at least, the world response is largely one of disinterest. Look at the Rwandan genocide.
On the other hand, I'm not sure what this article is trying to say. The language of the war? What does he mean? I'm not sure it's a very solid point at all.
On the other hand, I would like to see some analysis of how well we're doing out there, and what objectives we're achieving, but I think it's unrealistic to expect it while the war is going on. Has that ever happened in a war before? The author seems to imply that it has, but I think he is being misleading.
I disagree with Furedi on Libya. It's a schoolboy error to lump that conflict in with Iraq and Afghanistan, and is indicative of the attitude that many liberals display towards armed conflicts - that they are all bad bad bad, never justified, and should be avoided at all costs. Some conflicts ARE justified - Libya is one of them, Afghanistan is 50/50 and Iraq isn't.
But anyhow... I don't think we should be mincing our words. Let's just call it what it is: Islamofascism. That's what we're fighting. We're not fighting Islam (yet?), just a perverted version of it. We should stamp it out, once and for all, but that only starts with admitting who our enemies actually are.
Flashman wrote:9/11 was a triumph in the use of the visual medium. The images of the planes hitting the towers and the subsequently collapse "demanded" a strong reaction.
Surely the mass murder was what demanded the reaction mate?
Yes, but had 9/11 just been the Pentagon and Flight 93, I doubt we'd be at the same place we are now, even if the death toll had been similar.
I'd also argue that there are many attrocities of a similar number or higher to which nobody bats an eyelid.
those buildings were huge dude. They also had a ton of money invested into them and not only that but it was on american soil.
Flashman wrote:9/11 was a triumph in the use of the visual medium. The images of the planes hitting the towers and the subsequently collapse "demanded" a strong reaction.
Surely the mass murder was what demanded the reaction mate?
Yes, but had 9/11 just been the Pentagon and Flight 93, I doubt we'd be at the same place we are now, even if the death toll had been similar.
I'd also argue that there are many attrocities of a similar number or higher to which nobody bats an eyelid.
those buildings were huge dude. They also had a ton of money invested into them and not only that but it was on american soil.
Do you not understand what Flashman is saying?
Because of the footage and coverage of the Twin Towers(a huge landmark representative of the 'decadent Western society' that Islamofacism preaches against, with tons of money invested into them and not only on American soil but in an internationally recognizable city), it is a perfect example of a terrorist's wet dream.
The goal of terrorism is to make as loud of a statement as you can in order to scare a populace into submission and get your demands met by a force that would ordinarily pound you into the stone age.
'us' and 'them' is a bit of a muddy line in my humble opinion. After watching various videos such as 'Loose Change' I personally firmly believe that the attacks were either planned by the Bush administration as an excuse to invade Iraq, or they knew what was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it. This is my opinion.
There seems to be a culture now in the US that links any terrorist attrocity with Muslims before any facts are known. This was proven by all the major US Networks reporting 'Muslim Extremists' regarding the Norway Massacre recently before it was known who or what was going on. Check out this video, it should explain it...........
So who is 'us' and who is 'them'? There isgrowing evidence (shown in the links above) that 'us' is any non Muslim and 'them' is any Muslim.
I've lived in the Middle East now for 3 years (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bharhain, UAE) and being a Non Muslim, I in these countires definately fall into the 'them' catagory as jthe locals view themselves as 'us'. Everyone I have spoken to in Saudi Arabia has a deep resentment for Bin Laden for 'tarnishing' their country.
I think 'us' and 'them' depends on whether you are currently sitting in the majority or minority.
TheSecretSquig wrote:'us' and 'them' is a bit of a muddy line in my humble opinion. After watching various videos such as 'Loose Change' I personally firmly believe that the attacks were either planned by the Bush administration as an excuse to invade Iraq, or they knew what was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it. This is my opinion.
I would suggest you not mention that crap.
'Loose Change' is nothing but a perfect example of biased "journalism" at its finest. The proponents of it have been interviewed countless times, and they come up with ridiculous explanations like "super thermite"(which is theoretical at this point in time) used in the controlled demolition, teams of ninja demolition crews rigging the WTC with said super thermite, etc. They ignore evidence or claim that someone is 'part of the conspiracy' whenever their ideas are challenged.
You're right that it was used as an excuse to invade Iraq, but that doesn't mean that Bush and his crew planned 9/11 or "allowed it to happen". That's some of the most ridiculously absurd logic out there, and it's despicable that it even got a following to begin with.
There seems to be a culture now in the US that links any terrorist atrocity with Muslims before any facts are known. This was proven by all the major US Networks reporting 'Muslim Extremists' regarding the Norway Massacre recently before it was known who or what was going on. Check out this video, it should explain it...........
Because practically everyone(US media, UK media, even the Norwegians) was reporting it as 'Muslim Extremists' before the shootings on the island came to light, of which we now know the explosives were a diversionary attack to draw emergency response personnel from where they could respond.
So who is 'us' and who is 'them'? There is growing evidence (shown in the links above) that 'us' is any non Muslim and 'them' is any Muslim.
How is this different to anything existing before?
There's a reason racial profiling exists, as much as we as a society like to say that it's wrong.
I've lived in the Middle East now for 3 years (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bharhain, UAE) and being a Non Muslim, I in these countires definately fall into the 'them' catagory as jthe locals view themselves as 'us'. Everyone I have spoken to in Saudi Arabia has a deep resentment for Bin Laden for 'tarnishing' their country.
And they goddamned well should have a deep resentment for Bin Laden tarnishing their country--nay, their culture.
But it's not simply Bin Laden who's 'tarnishing their country' though, members of the Saudi royalty were well known for supporting Jihadi movements with one hand while feeding the Western world platitudes and ensuring that such a thing cannot possibly happen. The only way to combat this crap that we have currently.
Kanluwen wrote:
I would suggest you not mention that crap.
'Loose Change' is nothing but a perfect example of biased "journalism" at its finest. The proponents of it have been interviewed countless times, and they come up with ridiculous explanations like "super thermite"(which is theoretical at this point in time) used in the controlled demolition, teams of ninja demolition crews rigging the WTC with said super thermite, etc. They ignore evidence or claim that someone is 'part of the conspiracy' whenever their ideas are challenged.
Each to their own. I was stating my opinion, not trying to start a debate on the merits of the evidence. We could debate this for weeks and never agree. I beleive what I believe, you believe what you believe and lets leave it at that. But you do mention the 'biased journalism' being wrong, but it doesn't stop you defending biased Journalism as quoted by yourself.........
Kanluwen wrote:Because practically everyone(US media, UK media, even the Norwegians) was reporting it as 'Muslim Extremists' before the shootings on the island came to light
You're right that it was used as an excuse to invade Iraq, but that doesn't mean that Bush and his crew planned 9/11 or "allowed it to happen". That's some of the most ridiculously absurd logic out there, and it's despicable that it even got a following to begin with.
And as you've agreed, it was an excuse to invade Iraq. As much as I support the war (especially with my job!) and the efforts of all the men and women serving over there, we (i.e. the West) invaded and occupied a country wrongly. To date, no connections with 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', or 'Financial links to Bin Laden' have ever surfaced from Iraq which was the cause for war. I personally belive the world is a better place without Saddam, but all the reasons for invading Iraq where wrong. There have been much worst dicators in our lifetime than Saddam, and the West has done nothing to stop them. But then their contries didn't have any oil. As much as the 9/11 attacks where an attrocity, equally an attrocity is the continued bombing and killing of civillians in Iraq by western forces. Read some of the journalistic books written by Journalists in Fallujah when the US quarantined the city.
Kanluwen wrote:How is this different to anything existing before?
There's a reason racial profiling exists, as much as we as a society like to say that it's wrong.
So its acceptable that since 9/11, if you have a beard, dress arabic or have a Muslim sounding name, you are guilty by Mob rule?
Kanluwen wrote:But it's not simply Bin Laden who's 'tarnishing their country' though, members of the Saudi royalty were well known for supporting Jihadi movements with one hand while feeding the Western world platitudes and ensuring that such a thing cannot possibly happen. The only way to combat this crap that we have currently.
And so does the Western World. Problems in Yeman (no oil), no Western Involvement. Problems in Egypt (no oil), no Western Involvement. Problems in Libya and a chance to gain better control of oil movements, West gets involved. Problems in Barhrain, US has a fleet anchored there, no involvement due to threats from Saudi Arabia (who control vast amounts of oil). This isn't my view, but it is the view of people who live in the countries I work in. People in the Middle East feel like the only time the West get involved is if there is a chance they will gain better control of the countries oil reserves. Whether this is true or not is irellevent, its what people feel.
The whole 'War on Terror' has changed so many times since it started due to changing political situations etc. Look at the change in tactics of organisations like the IRA.
And equally, in the above article referencing the Pentagon Plane, some 'Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer' states that "It was absolutely a plane" and goes on to describe various things. Other experts have stated that 'the manouvre performed by the plane was impossible'.
So which is the correct version? If there was conclusive proof then there would be no conspirisy theory. The FBI could proove conclusively that a plane hit the Pentagon by releasing to the public the 2 CCTV recordings of the alledged plane hitting the building from the Gas Station or the Hotel. But within minutes of the attack, both CCTV recordings were seised and have never been released. The only release is a few grainy images which do not show any aircraft of any kind.
It is each to their own, and this topic was to debate the article, not the conspiricy theories on 9/11. There are whole internet sites dedicated to this.
I believe what the author of the article is trying to say is that unlike the cold war or other major conflicts the "global war on terror" or whatever they're calling it this week doesn't really make any sense because attempts to set up a paradigm of us vs them without clearly defining either. To quote Jon Stewart
"We declared war on terror—it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." --Jon Stewart
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this a 4th Generation War? With us still using 3rd Generation tactics?
1st Gen: Musketry on set battlefields (With the introduction of firearms as a standardized weapon)
2nd Gen: Static Lines with heavy artillery (Developed during the 1st World War)
3rd Gen: Mobile armored uniformed combined arms Forces (developed by Germany, Blitzkrieg)
4th Gen: Insurgencies, IED's demoralizing terror attacks (Developed to destroy larger, 3rd Gen Forces, first seen during Vietnam, today in Afgan and Iraq)
History has typically shown that an older Gen can never truly "win" a war against a newer Gen.
However given what happened, I can't see any other response at the time. Regardless of how it has been handled since.
Hmmmm. Interesting article about language and war. Its hard to argue that there are not elements that profit from having a never-ending war against an enemy that cannot be fully identified. Reminds me alot of the book 1984.
I think another thread should be started for the conspiracy side of it. I'll just say that it seems like alot of questions have not been satisfactorily answered, but that the logistics of keeping such a thing secret seem very prohibitive.
I think that, ultimately the "language" of this new "war" is much the same as various terms we have used previously in order to feel "good" about things.
So instead of giving actual sources, you give three very obscure conspiracy theorist websites. Glad you're as deeply connected to reality as flat earth creationists.
And equally, in the above article referencing the Pentagon Plane, some 'Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer' states that "It was absolutely a plane" and goes on to describe various things. Other experts have stated that 'the manouvre performed by the plane was impossible'.
So which is the correct version? If there was conclusive proof then there would be no conspirisy theory. The FBI could proove conclusively that a plane hit the Pentagon by releasing to the public the 2 CCTV recordings of the alledged plane hitting the building from the Gas Station or the Hotel. But within minutes of the attack, both CCTV recordings were seised and have never been released. The only release is a few grainy images which do not show any aircraft of any kind.
I'd recommend you watch a new documentary, The Day the Changed the World: 10 Years On.
A couple of decent ideas buried in the original article, but overall I'm not too impressed, and I think he's a bit too fixated on his linguistic thesis. There are legitimate points to be made about the rather Orwellian language sometimes used, about how complicated and difficult to understand this conflict/these conflicts can be, and about the public's attititude towards them, but I don't think the article's author did a very good job making those points.
9/11 is a logical name because it succinctly references the date on which multiple coordinated attacks occurred. Pearl Harbor happened in one place; 9/11 happened on one date in three different places. People also refer to the World Trade Center attacks, but that wasn't the only time the WTC was attacked, so really 9/11 is a more accurate and clear term. 7/7 then follows the same pattern as it's related and subsequent to 9/11.
I can't get behind the ideas put forward about how the current conflicts are labeled and what that reveals about our motivations/intents either. I think the War on Terrorism is a bad name, as Jon Stewart pointed out long ago, because you can't defeat a concept. At least not with bullets. IMO the real reason for the unclear naming is just that the conflict is too complex and multifaceted to easily summarize it as "the war against x".
--------
The Chomsky article's a better one. I can't get behind all of it (like suggesting that there wasn't enough evidence to think that Bin Laden was conclusively guilty), but there's a lot of disturbing food for thought in there.
Mannahnin wrote: I can't get behind all of it (like suggesting that there wasn't enough evidence to think that Bin Laden was conclusively guilty)
Guilty of what though? They can connect him to al qaeda and they have crappy alleged video evidence of him boasting but that's about it.
There wasn't enough evidence connecting him directly to the 9/11 attack according the FBI. That doesn't mean he wasn't a bad dude, an evildor, an extremist, a terrorist, and so on. There's certainly evidence of his involvement in the planning/financing of plenty of terrorist attacks, more than enough to condemn the man.
Medium of Death wrote:
Surprised big. O went in to Pakistan with a 50% chance of Bin Laden being in the compound.
The risks taken to get him seemed crazy.
Pssht, part of the conspiracy. Bin Laden telepathically contacted Obama to let him know where he was, so that his current form could be destroyed and phase two of the Space Lizard Pope-King's plan to subjugate mankind could begin!
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE.
(Tons and tons of sarcasm intended, just to make things clear.)
What I don't understand is WHY are we STILL hearing about it. It's like the holocaust - we don't need a daily reminder! And other equally horrific things have happened that never seem to garner as much attention.
Is it because America has never been blitz or bombed or attacked on its own soil by a foreign power?
Don't get me wrong, it was tragic, but I'm sick hearing about 9/11 every 5 minutes.
Phototoxin wrote:What I don't understand is WHY are we STILL hearing about it. It's like the holocaust - we don't need a daily reminder! And other equally horrific things have happened that never seem to garner as much attention.
Is it because America has never been blitz or bombed or attacked on its own soil by a foreign power?
Don't get me wrong, it was tragic, but I'm sick hearing about 9/11 every 5 minutes.
It is sort of because America has never really suffered another atrocity (that wasn't committed by other Americans), but I would say it more the result of three things:
1) New York is a huge, huge part of American culture, even more so than Washington, and probably on par with LA. On top of this, the WTC was a hugely important symbol of New York, matched only by the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building. Blowing it up would be like blowing up Big Ben.
2) It was covered by the media in a way that few other terrorist attacks have, and maybe unique in that regard.
3) Let's be honest, for all my native land likes to appear strong, it also likes to whine.
Albatross wrote:Wait, Pearl Harbour was on American soil, wasn't it? Isn't it part of Hawaii or something?
I don't think I'd call that an atrocity, just an act of war. But yeah, its on O'ahu. Cool place too, lots of war porn, great weather, and girls that may or may not have a future in normal porn.
Albatross wrote:Yeah, I see where you're coming from. It's just the only incident that seems remotely comparable to 9/11, given the 'SURPRISE!' angle...
I mean, realistically, I would either call all loss of life an atrocity, or none of it, I'm not big on the emotional distinction between civilians and soldiers.
For me, it's the shock factor that makes an atrocity - for the victims, witnesses, the wider public... I mean, death is death. Big deal. But when it takes place in such a way as to deeply offend people's sensibilities (expectations?), that's when we seem to label it an atrocity. It's all about perspective - 9/11 was a well-executed, well-planned and spectacularly realised operation against an enemy of insurmountable power, as far as islamic terrorists are concerned. To them it made perfect sense. Hell, if I was in their position, I can't say I wouldn't use similar tactics.
Of course, what we're mostly presented with is that the only possible way for us in the west to feel about 9/11 is that is was a terrible, cowardly act of criminal murder. I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Then again, as a hard-bitten pragmatist, I don't think anyone should be 100% sure about anything that they think or believe!
Albatross wrote:
Of course, what we're mostly presented with is that the only possible way for us in the west to feel about 9/11 is that is was a terrible, cowardly act of criminal murder.
I would, and have, argued that it was actually pretty damn brave.
Albatross wrote:
I don't think anyone should be 100% sure about anything that they think or believe!
Bertrand Russel agrees. Though there are some things I'm certain of.
Oh yeah! Your sig... Forgot about that. My stance is basically just that when the facts change, you either change with them or get left behind. This has led some of my friends to comment that I'm cynical, but then, when I'm a millionaire I can just buy new friends. So screw them.
Never claimed Chomsky wasn't smart. He obviously is. He is also about as biased a source as you can find, descibing himself as an anti-US anarchist type of guy... Though for an actual anarchist his views are extremely leftist.
CptJake wrote:Never claimed Chomsky wasn't smart. He obviously is. He is also about as biased a source as you can find, descibing himself as an anti-US anarchist type of guy... Though for an actual anarchist his views are extremely leftist.
Eh, sort of, he is socially very liberal, but also very libertarian economically/structurally.
But, while he is biased (so is everyone else, meaning that bias is basically irrelevant, same thing I say every time that word is used), his research is still quite good. You just have to filter through the analysis if you don't like it (dislike also being based on bias).
Phototoxin wrote:What I don't understand is WHY are we STILL hearing about it. It's like the holocaust - we don't need a daily reminder! And other equally horrific things have happened that never seem to garner as much attention.
Is it because America has never been blitz or bombed or attacked on its own soil by a foreign power?
Don't get me wrong, it was tragic, but I'm sick hearing about 9/11 every 5 minutes.
*Because it was the worst terrorist attack in the history of mankind, both in loss of life and financial impact.
*The US has been attacked before. We didn't take kindly then either.
British in war of 1812.
Mexican advance in 1846, (followed shortly by a Mexican retreat. )
Pancho Villa in 1915-1916
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Frazzled wrote:
*The US has been attacked before. We didn't take kindly then either.
Oh, this will be fun.
Frazzled wrote:
British in war of 1812.
Mexican advance in 1846, (followed shortly by a Mexican retreat. )
Pancho Villa in 1915-1916
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
And that's before asking the question "Who cares?"
CptJake wrote:Additionally, this specifically targeted civilians which makes it a lot different from the Pearl Harbor attack.
Only to people who think that matters? Which seems to be everyone that is an American, and does not want to differentiate between civilians and soldiers unless it favors their civilians.
Is it that since the Civil War, as a percentage of GDP, Republicans get us involved in wars that are inexpensive (1% of GDP) while Democrats start expensive wars (>2% of GDP)?
Is it that since the Civil War, as a percentage of GDP, Republicans get us involved in wars that are inexpensive (1% of GDP) while Democrats start expensive wars (>2% of GDP)?
First, party doesn't matter over that much time, everyone know's that (Democratic-Republicans are great, no?).
Second, the point is that the US doesn't smash terrorists by policy, and it took equivocation to even try and make a Conservative point.
Also that Fraz doesn't know what "terrorism" means, but everyone knew that before.
*Because it was the worst terrorist attack in the history of mankind, both in loss of life and financial impact.
*The US has been attacked before. We didn't take kindly then either.
British in war of 1812.
Mexican advance in 1846, (followed shortly by a Mexican retreat. )
Pancho Villa in 1915-1916
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
This is relevant why?
Ah America.. such a strange country. A land of enormous diversity. The same nation that has the black panthers, has the Klu Klux clan. The nation with the biggest gay pride parades, has the biggest amount of homophobes, and for every person that is nauseatingly patriotic, you have a sensible person.
I just heard Bush give his speech after 9/11, and it made me want to vomit. America is THE BEST.
That speech alone must have assisted AQ recruitment more than anything Osama could have said.
Frazzled wrote:
*The US has been attacked before. We didn't take kindly then either.
Oh, this will be fun.
Frazzled wrote:
British in war of 1812.
Mexican advance in 1846, (followed shortly by a Mexican retreat. )
Pancho Villa in 1915-1916
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Whatever you posted has pretty much NOTHING to do with my post. Good attempt to to try to sidestep the point for some reason and develop a strawman argument you'd like to fight about. , but as you say - who cares. I was responsding to the poster who proffered the US soil had not been attacked before.
And that's before asking the question "Who cares?"
As those events started major wars or thousands of troops being mobilized (Pancho Villa), I'd submit the USA did.
OK, Now that you've performed standard Dogma move #1: attempting to move the discussion into an unrelated field, I eagerly await standard Dogma move #2: arguing about the different definitions of words. Or will it be #3: arguing about how to argue?
Regardless, I merely corrected his misprerception of actual US history. As I care not a whit about yours, back to topic.
*Because it was the worst terrorist attack in the history of mankind, both in loss of life and financial impact.
*The US has been attacked before. We didn't take kindly then either.
British in war of 1812.
Mexican advance in 1846, (followed shortly by a Mexican retreat. )
Pancho Villa in 1915-1916
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
This is relevant why?
Ah America.. such a strange country. A land of enormous diversity. The same nation that has the black panthers, has the Klu Klux clan. The nation with the biggest gay pride parades, has the biggest amount of homophobes, and for every person that is nauseatingly patriotic, you have a sensible person.
I just heard Bush give his speech after 9/11, and it made me want to vomit. America is THE BEST.
That speech alone must have assisted AQ recruitment more than anything Osama could have said.
Ah now I see. I was responding to the "attack" not "terrorist attack."
Terrorist attacks against the US mainland are indeed more limited but have occurred previously.
*The first Tower attack under the Clinton administration.
*The Weathermen bombings (ask Obama's friend about that)
*Black Panther attacks of the same period.
*The vermin that are the Klan - 1865-1965.
*oklahoma bombing.
*Unabomber bombings
*Tylenol attacks.
*Pancho Villa.
mattyrm wrote: I just heard Bush give his speech after 9/11, and it made me want to vomit. America is THE BEST.
We are the best. Live it, learn it, love it. Anyone who's eaten proper Amurican Pizza (HURR!) knows we're the best. Its not your fault you're British and have a cuisine that would make a Billy Goat puke.
Frazzled wrote:
Whatever you posted has pretty much NOTHING to do with my post.
That the US has been attacked, and subsequently defended itself? Yeah, that's nice, and isn't the point. How the US defended itself given the attack is the point, and my point was that proportionality seems to have been abandoned even given the seemingly "hard" mentalities of the past.
Frazzled wrote:
Good attempt to to try to sidestep the point for some reason and develop a strawman argument you'd like to fight about. , but as you say - who cares. I was responsding to the poster who proffered the US soil had not been attacked before.
Didn't sidestep, or present a strawman. Its funny too, because you lead with the word "whatever" which makes me believe you're obfuscating.
Frazzled wrote:
As those events started major wars or thousands of troops being mobilized (Pancho Villa), I'd submit the USA did.
Major? 1812? Really?
Frazzled wrote:
OK, Now that you've performed standard Dogma move #1: attempting to move the discussion into an unrelated field, I eagerly await standard Dogma move #2: arguing about the different definitions of words. Or will it be #3: arguing about how to argue?
Regardless, I merely corrected his misprerception of actual US history. As I care not a whit about yours, back to topic.
So what you're saying is that you can't deal with dissent. I knew this, but its nice to illustrate every so often.
Melissia wrote:How are the Black Panther incidents terrorist attacks? Wouldn't you classify the innumerable KKK incidents as terrorism then?
Er. read again. I did. They are pretty much the definition of terrorists to me.
I'd also add in John Brown, and the whole Bleeding Kansas scene as the a nice run of mid 1800s terrorism across a wide spectrum. Amazingly, this was in Kansas. Who gives a about...Kansas? Even people from Kansas hate Kansas.
biccat wrote:
Sure it does. There are a lot of political similarities between early-19th century progressives (Wilson) and modern progressives (Obama).
Sure, and there are a lot of commonalities between Wilson and GWII (and Reagan).
biccat wrote:
Also, the Democratic-Republican party was disolved well before the Civil War, which was my starting point. But I'm sure you knew that.
And I wasn't talking about economics, I was talking about why party doesn't matter.
biccat wrote:
I don't see how the link you posted supports either of these conclusions.
My point: The US will defend itself, but the "defense" against 9/11 was excessive.
Melissia wrote:In that case, I'd like to label a surprising number of Christians as terrorists for how they treat homosexuals.
OK. The Christians who burn homosexual churches, and hang homosexuals should indeed be treated as terrorists. We're on the same page here, although I'd change that from Christians to any organized group.
Melissia wrote:In that case, I'd like to label a surprising number of Christians as terrorists for how they treat homosexuals.
OK. The Christians who burn homosexual churches, and hang homosexuals should indeed be treated as terrorists. We're on the same page here, although I'd change that from Christians to any organized group.
Oh no, the terrorizing is far more than merely the arson and the murders. In fact, for many people (not everyone of course, given that it's open for interpretation), the bible itself is essentially intended to as a book supporting terrorism towards homosexuals.
Technically, it means "create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone)" in this particualr case. Which is why I found it odd he's trying to use this definition because it's really overbroad for what we're talking about.
Melissia wrote:In that case, I'd like to label a surprising number of Christians as terrorists for how they treat homosexuals.
Why, what actual attacks on homosexuals have American Christians done? What makes those attacks terrorist attacks?
Let's see... countless assaults on homosexuals, especially but not exclusively teenaged males. Rapes, especially on lesbians (see "corrective rape"). Murders, including particularly gruesome and humiliating ones. The constant preaching of hate and intolerance (just like the Islamic extremists preaching of the same against the western world and Israel). Arson against churches that are friendly to homosexuality. Nevermind the never-ending barrage of emotional and social assaults which have no direct violence but do just as much damage.
A better question is what kind of attacks HAVEN'T been done, the only real answer is "there haven't been any large scale attacks", qualified with a "yet" at the end, because someone's going to do that eventually-- it's inevitable given how much hatred is preached. All of this adds up to create an atmosphere of terror in many locations for homosexuals.
Melissia wrote:In that case, I'd like to label a surprising number of Christians as terrorists for how they treat homosexuals.
Why, what actual attacks on homosexuals have American Christians done? What makes those attacks terrorist attacks?
Oh come on, there is a reason that Europeans universally lol at Americans on this topic, there must be shed loads of individual incidents considering you guys have all kinds of fething wack job Christians running around. Scott Roeder is a good example of an American Christian murderous bastard, and ive read numerous stories similar regarding gay people for years. There was one on TV when I was over there about some fruit cake stabbing some gay guy to death because he was gay. Its just needless belligerence to ask for individual cases.
As I said, its the number one reason I left the RM, we are the biggest allies the US has and frankly I'm uncomfortable with the idea of invading anyone else if it turns out that we only went because some hick thinks that Jesus might have liked the idea.
I know this will be controversial, but I would argue that to homosexuals, terrorism is far more real than it is to the average American. Terrorism is something that the LGBT individuals and communities have to personally face every day, not just occasionally hear about it on the news.
It's like trying to talk to an Afghani or Israeli about terrorism when you've lived in Idaho or wherever your entire life without ever seeing any such violence or oppression first hand.
Melissia wrote:I know this will be controversial, but I would argue that to homosexuals, terrorism is far more real than it is to the average American. Terrorism is something that the LGBT individuals and communities have to personally face every day, not just occasionally hear about it on the news.
It's like trying to talk to an Afghani or Israeli about terrorism when you've lived in Idaho or wherever your entire life without ever seeing any such violence or oppression first hand.
Is he not a terrorist because he has no connections to terrorist groups?
Frazzled wrote:A Kimber Ultra Carry helps that.
Lulz. So, entirely off topic-- So we should have a government fund to purchase one of these for every homosexual? Hm. To try to make sure people can't game the system, make it only those whom are getting married and it gets confiscated if they divorce?
Lulz. So, entirely off topic-- So we should have a government fund to purchase one of these for every homosexual? Hm. To try to make sure people can't game the system, make it only those whom are getting married and it gets confiscated if they divorce?
Heh.
Hell no. Man up and buy your own. Quit sucking off the government tit.
Alternatively just carry a crossbow. Call it a fashion accessory. If someone commits terrorist acts on you, like throwing stones at your car, just shoot them. Let California show us the way.
Medium of Death: Just like a large number of homophobic hate crimes are inspired by the hateful preaching of many Christian religious authorities, yes?
Medium of Death wrote:Islam is not a Terrorist organisation, neither is Christianity.
Also ,noone claimed this paricular statement. what's your point?
Just to jump back to 9/11 for a moment. There have been some really good retrospective programs on the attacks on TV over here recently.
There was an interesting one on yesterday were comedian Andrew Maxwell (funny Irish bloke) takes a bunch of conspiracy theorists on a road trip to the locations of the attacks and to meet people involved ,as well as various experts to try and debunk there beliefs.
It nicely captures the full spectrum of conspiracy theorists, from those who have doubts simply down to there own ignorance and lack of knowledge about the world, to those were the conspiracy has essentially become a religion substitute and belief is a matter of unbreakable faith no matter how much contradictory evidence there shown.
Its a nice watch but I found it infuriating at times as it gave me flashbacks to arguments I have had with conspiracy nutters over the years. Its like they all read from the same script just blindly following the herd.
Manchu wrote:Alright, please let's don't identify entire religions with terrorism. No legitimate points can be made by painting with so broad a brush.
Can we paint the the Great Speghetti Being with some nice butter and a nice meat based marinara though? (I have pizza for lunch and am just aching to start on that).
about...Kansas? Even people from Kansas hate Kansas. 