9/11 was trivial

[JimC]

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9012.html

An interesting added point to any discussion of terrorism is the simple fact that it ends. Audrey Cronon wrote a book (reference above) in which she discusses how terrorism ends. It turns out that only about 5% of all terrorist groups achieve any of their goals at all. In the end, their organisations disintegrate.

Terrorism is ultimately futile, although it can create enormous damage in the mean time. They key thing is not to over-react and permit the terrorists to achieve a reduction in the freedom and civil liberties of a developed nation.

Depends what you define as "terrorism". Remember the ANC were "terrorists".

The apartheid regime, historically, was on a hiding to nowhere. Its days were numbered, but it didn't die via a militarily successful terrorist campaign.

The goal of islamic fundamentalist terror groups, a caliphate over all current muslim lands and eventually the whole earth is not a realistic proposition, and not a natural direction for historical processes to go.

The similarity is only superficial.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The people that plan acts like 9/11 do so exactly because they know the impact will be disproportionate to the actuality of the damage. Surely that is their whole point? The reaction of Bush's administration and the ratcheting up of the conflict was what they sought. They want a 'war' between their version of Islam and the satanic west. The fact that Bush did exactly what they wanted him to shows how dumb he really and truly was. There was not a shred of finesse or subtly in his strategy as far as I can see. Indeed he seems to have chosen a target (Saddam) more or less at random in order to show he was 'doing something' with consequences that made the whole picture much murkier and complicated.

It's not quite as simple as that. Although "going after Saddam" was knee-jerk bollocks, some significant gesture was necessary. It would be political suicide for ANY leader to respond to a terrorist attack on their own soil with the equivalent of, "Let's just ignore them and hope they get bored of it." Appearing "weak on terror" is a political suicide note. Plus, there is a strong element of "pour encourager les autres" in any political response to a hostile act.

[pErvinalia]

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9012.html

An interesting added point to any discussion of terrorism is the simple fact that it ends. Audrey Cronon wrote a book (reference above) in which she discusses how terrorism ends. It turns out that only about 5% of all terrorist groups achieve any of their goals at all. In the end, their organisations disintegrate.

Terrorism is ultimately futile, although it can create enormous damage in the mean time. They key thing is not to over-react and permit the terrorists to achieve a reduction in the freedom and civil liberties of a developed nation.

Depends what you define as "terrorism". Remember the ANC were "terrorists".

The apartheid regime, historically, was on a hiding to nowhere. Its days were numbered, but it didn't die via a militarily successful terrorist campaign.

The goal of islamic fundamentalist terror groups, a caliphate over all current muslim lands and eventually the whole earth is not a realistic proposition, and not a natural direction for historical processes to go.

The similarity is only superficial.

Absolutely. It's just BG's un-nuanced absolutist statements annoy the shit out of me.

[rainbow]

Yep 9/11 was trivial. Terrorism happens in foreign countries all the time. Still America is good at Hollywooding their news.

He said we were a band of Arabs coming in to blow up New York

Jack Kerouac, 1951

[Rum]

The people that plan acts like 9/11 do so exactly because they know the impact will be disproportionate to the actuality of the damage. Surely that is their whole point? The reaction of Bush's administration and the ratcheting up of the conflict was what they sought. They want a 'war' between their version of Islam and the satanic west. The fact that Bush did exactly what they wanted him to shows how dumb he really and truly was. There was not a shred of finesse or subtly in his strategy as far as I can see. Indeed he seems to have chosen a target (Saddam) more or less at random in order to show he was 'doing something' with consequences that made the whole picture much murkier and complicated.

It's not quite as simple as that. Although "going after Saddam" was knee-jerk bollocks, some significant gesture was necessary. It would be political suicide for ANY leader to respond to a terrorist attack on their own soil with the equivalent of, "Let's just ignore them and hope they get bored of it." Appearing "weak on terror" is a political suicide note. Plus, there is a strong element of "pour encourager les autres" in any political response to a hostile act.

Well I didn't suggest they they should do nothing. But just suppose in response they had announced a huge (I mean huge!) aid and education programme for Afghanistan or sub-Saharan Africa just to change the game. If it had been handled properly, with massive publicity they could have potentially stopped the development of the view widely held in the Arab world that America is an aggressive neo-colonial power. Too late now of course.

[Audley Strange]

It is interesting, though, according to Pinker, that Al Qaeda's efforts at terror attacks are diminishing since 9/11. This is partly due to active efforts on the part of various governments to fight back, including the killing of bin Laden himself, and also partly due to an erosion of the popular support. This comes from the fact that Al Qaeda has been killing large numbers of Muslims and otherwise committing atrocities, and the ordinary Muslim eventually gets repulsed by that.

If Al Qaeda is like many other, earlier terrorist groups, its days are numbered.

Well then I'm sorry but Pinker is talking shite. Unless his book ignores the continuing violence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Sudan and Yemen, where terrorist attacks by Islamist Terror cells are practically a weekly event along with prayers. It also discounts, the London Bombings, the Mali Bombings, the Madrid bombings as well as many other places. The production values may have changed certainly, lots of destabilisation of Governments supported by the Western powers. The Muslim Brotherhood has made massive political gains across the region.

They've always attacked Muslims and show no sign of stopping at all. It will stop when they run out of virgins to blow themselves up.

[pErvinalia]

The people that plan acts like 9/11 do so exactly because they know the impact will be disproportionate to the actuality of the damage. Surely that is their whole point? The reaction of Bush's administration and the ratcheting up of the conflict was what they sought. They want a 'war' between their version of Islam and the satanic west. The fact that Bush did exactly what they wanted him to shows how dumb he really and truly was. There was not a shred of finesse or subtly in his strategy as far as I can see. Indeed he seems to have chosen a target (Saddam) more or less at random in order to show he was 'doing something' with consequences that made the whole picture much murkier and complicated.

It's not quite as simple as that. Although "going after Saddam" was knee-jerk bollocks, some significant gesture was necessary. It would be political suicide for ANY leader to respond to a terrorist attack on their own soil with the equivalent of, "Let's just ignore them and hope they get bored of it." Appearing "weak on terror" is a political suicide note. Plus, there is a strong element of "pour encourager les autres" in any political response to a hostile act.

Well I didn't suggest they they should do nothing. But just suppose in response they had announced a huge (I mean huge!) aid and education programme for Afghanistan or sub-Saharan Africa just to change the game. If it had been handled properly, with massive publicity they could have potentially stopped the development of the view widely held in the Arab world that America is an aggressive neo-colonial power. Too late now of course.

Not old testament enough. The baying masses wouldn't have accepted that. They needed their pound of flesh.

[mistermack]

Of course 9/11 wasn't trivial.
I get the argument in the OP, but if the world doesn't think that way, then the effect will never be trivial.

It's like burglary, or car theft, or mugging. Statistically, it's really a minor thing. But you still need locks on your door, or car, or to avoid being alone, in certain areas.
It's not just paranoia. If everyone in your street has a good burglar alarm, except you, then your chances of being burgled are much higher. And if nearly everybody locks their cars, but you don't, then you're likely to be the one to lose it.

And in any case, if nobody bothered with locks and alarms, there would be a lot more burglars about.
The same goes for terrorists. If it was easier, and less risky, there would be more doing it.

[Audley Strange]

Of course 9/11 wasn't trivial.
I get the argument in the OP, but if the world doesn't think that way, then the effect will never be trivial.

It's like burglary, or car theft, or mugging. Statistically, it's really a minor thing. But you still need locks on your door, or car, or to avoid being alone, in certain areas.
It's not just paranoia. If everyone in your street has a good burglar alarm, except you, then your chances of being burgled are much higher. And if nearly everybody locks their cars, but you don't, then you're likely to be the one to lose it.

And in any case, if nobody bothered with locks and alarms, there would be a lot more burglars about.
The same goes for terrorists. If it was easier, and less risky, there would be more doing it.

Actually the world does. I reckon I could go to most of it and people will consider it not on their list of priorities at all. I'm sure the few billion in China, Africa, The Middle East, India and quite a lot of Europe South America and Canada does not give one shit that some planes flew into some buildings in a different country over a decade ago any more than they gave a shit about most other acts of terrorism. It is Americo-centric issue. Christ most people I know didn't even give a shit about the attack at Glasgow Airport other than to smirk a bit and that's just down the road.

The only people who should give a shit are those in the locale, the victims and the victims of the outrageously inappropriate response.

[laklak]

It was a Godsend for the neo-fascists Bushy and O'Bammy. We live in a fucking police state. We're X-rayed, hacked and cracked, detained, droned and boned in the name of some nebulous and nonexistent "national security". If the very phrase "Homeland Security" doesn't scare the bejesus out of you then you have a very poor imagination. Our cops are decked out in black body armor, the Emperor can order you detained without charge or trial AND torture you on a whim without any form of judicial oversight whatsoever and jingoistic nationalism is the face of the New World Order. Keeps the armament industries ticking over, you see. We just spent over 17 billion dollars on yet another aircraft carrier, to protect us against....well....what, exactly? Color me skeptical, but the Situation Room weenies were dancing joyous jigs as those planes hit the towers.

[Warren Dew]

The people that plan acts like 9/11 do so exactly because they know the impact will be disproportionate to the actuality of the damage. Surely that is their whole point? The reaction of Bush's administration and the ratcheting up of the conflict was what they sought. They want a 'war' between their version of Islam and the satanic west. The fact that Bush did exactly what they wanted him to shows how dumb he really and truly was. There was not a shred of finesse or subtly in his strategy as far as I can see. Indeed he seems to have chosen a target (Saddam) more or less at random in order to show he was 'doing something' with consequences that made the whole picture much murkier and complicated.

It's not quite as simple as that. Although "going after Saddam" was knee-jerk bollocks, some significant gesture was necessary. It would be political suicide for ANY leader to respond to a terrorist attack on their own soil with the equivalent of, "Let's just ignore them and hope they get bored of it." Appearing "weak on terror" is a political suicide note. Plus, there is a strong element of "pour encourager les autres" in any political response to a hostile act.

Well I didn't suggest they they should do nothing. But just suppose in response they had announced a huge (I mean huge!) aid and education programme for Afghanistan or sub-Saharan Africa just to change the game. If it had been handled properly, with massive publicity they could have potentially stopped the development of the view widely held in the Arab world that America is an aggressive neo-colonial power. Too late now of course.

We did announce massive aid for subsaharan Africa. Subsaharan Africa loved us; Al Qaeda and the Arabs cared not at all.

The only thing that would have helped would have been forcing Israel to do right by the palestinian Arabs, and that would have had to have been done before 9/11, not after. After 9/11, it would have looked like we were doing it because of the terrorism, which would only have encouraged more terrorism.

[Blind groper]

Warren

9/11 is now far enough in the past that a move to encourage a sane and responsible approach by Israel to their situation would not be seen as giving in to terrorism. Such a move would be far too constructive and sensible, though, for any American administration.

[Warren Dew]

BG, I largely agree with your last. I would only add that the approach would also need to be workable. And while this American administration is certainly not up to the task, I don't really think the leadership in the levant is currently up to the task either.