Originally posted by jamacI have survived a terrorist bombing in my hometown Vienna Austria in the late 70s. I do not understand why Bush seems to give it so much more importance. Terrorism is only important if we make it important. I look in terror upon the campaign ads. Does that mean our political parties are terrorists?
I feel terror when I fill up my car...
Is terrorism the excuse to spend billions on new weapons which, no matter in whose hands they are, will make the world a more dangerous place. It is an absolute truth that any weapon ever created will eventually used against it's creator.
Right now terror has won already. Vote for war and you vote for terror. Buy gas and you buy bullets for terrorists and for the army.
200 billion extra security would have easily prevented 911. For this kind of dough we could have gotten strip searches by professional strippers at every airport for 40 years.
Now do you see the waste???
Terrorism is the new justification for the corporate military-industrial complex's monstrous slice of the national pie. The Soviet Union was the visible bogeyman that we were all indoctrinated to fear, as the dastardly evil always poised to invade and destroy our culture and way of life. (In reality, the USSR was incapable of feeding its own people, let alone attacking and taking over a distant superpower for no reason. They even got their asses whopped in Afghanistan)
. Now the Soviet Union is gone, and a replacement bogeyman was required....and what could be better than an invisible threat without borders, or territories, or armies or governments? Terrorism, the perfect fear mechanism, always present, unseen. poised to strike anyone, anywhere, Just like the threat of 'the big one', re. earthquakes: you never know when its going to happen, or where, how severe its going to be, or what fault's going to shift. Of course, we've just had 'the big one', in the case of 9-11...and the fear factor is now neatly in place...and the pre-planned, pre-written agendae of those who benefit from a perpetual unwinnable war on terrorists, real or imaginary, is already unfolding, in the form of an endless series of military actions abroad, and a domestic program to gradually dismantle the legacies of a democratic societiy, replacing them by rule by unelected, parasitic, privately owned (but often pubicly funded), and unaccountable organizations.
Is the international terrorist threat in the US overplayed? I believe so. Before 9/11, how many incidents of that type have there been in my own lifetime? I can hardly recall anything, apart ftom the WTC bombing in 1993, and the circumstances surrounding that event are most peculiar
,to put it mildly. Domestic terrorist threats and incidents, despite being equally effective at causing death and destruction, don't really count with this government, because the blame lies with parties here at home, and big military might is inappropriate in dealing with abortion clinic bombers, anthrax mailers, serial snipers and right-wing Texas militiamen manufacturing chemical weapons.
No amount of security clampdowns will stop or prevent terrorist incidents, if the perps want to do it. At the Democratic Convention in Boston earlier this year, they city of Boston spent some $80 miilion in security, but according to experts in terrorism, anyone with basic military training could have smuggled an automatic weapon into a sensitive location, or detonated a bomb in the city, with absolutely no problem whatsoever. Also, just look at what's been going down in the airports: since 9-11 there have been hundreds of incidents where items that could be used in a terrorist attack on a plane have been successfully smuggled on board, sometimes with the purpose of pointing out to the authorities that the security sucks. If these security lapses are so commonplace, then a terrorist actually dedicated to hijacking a plane could have probably achieved that aim by now. If airport security was so (comparatively) shoddy before 9/11, then where were all the terrorist incidents on planes, and hijackings during that period also? These types of plane hijacking incidents have virtually disappeared from the international scene over the last 20 years or so, even around unstable nations. Then there's our ports, nuclear facilities and chemical plants.....security at many of these places is non-existent. For fanatical people of the terrorist mindset, it would be really simple to pull off an attack. In a densely industrial society like ours, with so many high profile targets, there is always somewhere that can be attacked, and cause massive damage and loss of life, and/or huge inconvenience and $$cost. It is impossible
to secure everything, everywhere.
One of the most obvious aspects of international terrorism in the US is its rarity. As I mentioned, the number of international
incidents in the US up until 9/11 could barely be counted on the fingers of one hand over a many decade period, and the number of deaths involved is far far less than those killed by lightning, for example.
A typical terrorist attack, such as a what the IRA was pulling in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s, or what ETA does in Spain, or Hamas in Israel would not be spectacular enough, or damaging enough to warrant a fullscale 'global war on terrorism": the American people would never have bought it. What was required, according to the PNAC section of the Bush administration, was a "new Pearl Harbor" to initiate their policy dreams and aspirations, namely rebuilding America's defenses worldwide and embarking on a global war. And in 9-11, which was a huge public spectacular display of unparalled horror and massive destruction lasting several hours, played out on every televison screen throughout America and the world, they got exactly what they wanted, and planned for.
There are several far more effective ways of preventing terrorism than clamping down on domestic liberties: that is by never putting foreign policies into effect that create disenfranchised populations; they end up with little or nothing to lose, and they are prepared to lose even that. Also, we must end once and for all the fatally flawed practise of regarding the 'enemy of our enemy as our friend". It always
blows up in our faces. Then there is the practise of supporting and funding brutal regimes, or nations run by religious fanatics, more often than not for the gain of privately owned commercial entities, either US or foreign owned: Successive United States governments of both major parties have indulged in these nefarious practises for many decades; Kissinger et al call it realpolitik', it is evil in disguise. If all this involves sublimating excess machismo baggage, then so be it. I would welcome any of it as a necessary step forward in international relations.