Weapons of Mass Distraction and the War on Tourism
It is evident that the fear level of the general community has skyrocketed ever since western governments and media have been promoting a War on Terrorism.
Terrorism has been with us for years. The rate of terrorist events has not increased over the last couple of years in the USA. I concede that the risk of terrorist events may have increased since the invasion of Iraq, however I suspect much of this threat has been offset by risk mitigation controls implemented since the most recent terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre.
My contention is that the whole thing is way over-hyped. In the US, the greatest threat from terrorist activities is from domestic sources. In Europe there has been the IRA, the Basques, the PKK and a whole host of other groups using terrorist strategies for years. Why this ‘War on Terrorism’ all of a sudden? Do we need another bogie man? Now that people are bored of communists and drugs, do we need a replacement target?
This sudden interest by the media and governments feeds back into itself and creates a whole range of societal disorders, from stresses on economies to mental stress in people. I imagine it is a lot worse in the USA than it is here in Australia. I would not be surprised if there is an large scale industrial accident or similar physical crisis in the next couple of years (non-terrorist as does happen on a regular basis), where in the first instance people will automatically think it was a terrorist initiated event.
I do not have information that is privy to the world’s intelligence gathering organisations, but it does not take a genius to work out that the risk of terrorism is greatly over reported leading to greater harm than good.
Have you been watching Bowling for Columbine again? Because your OP has essentially the same theme as Moore’s documentary, that American media’s artificial hyping of dangers and threats turns us into a nation of trigger-happy neurotics.
No I haven’t seen Bowling for Columbine - spend too much time on the SDMB to do that. I thought it was moore about gun control.
I suppose I am stating the obvious though. Oh well, so much starting a debate.
The Australian government must have read my OP - I heard on the radio this morning, the foreign minister saying that everyone should relax and the the terrorist threat isn’t that bad really.
Now I know George Bush reads the SDMB - so George, come on, tell everyone its not that bad, and that that you have overreacted a little.
Maybe its just that the terrorists are thinking BIGGER. The Irish Republican Army killed a total of 1,696 people from 1969 - 1998. Total deaths attributable to ALL sides in the IRA (and similar but different organizations) vs. Great Britain in the same time frame are 3,331 ( CITE ). Al Qaeda got 2,800+ in one day…almost as much as the whole mess in Ireland/Britain did in 30 years.
In the past the US had Oklahoma City, Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the USS Cole and so on and people didn’t freak. I think it is the sense that terrorists are no longer content with a plane here or a cafe there but want to make BIG hits. If you think about it it is remarkable ‘only’ 2,800 people died in the WTC attacks. I bet Al Qaeda was expecting and hoping for more (IIRC the towers generally had something like 50,000 people in them at any given time not to mention the effects of toppling two buildings that size on the city below).
For my money however I will visit Australia anytime…just help me scratch up $3,500 for the airline ticket and I’m there.
I bet Al Qaeda were amazed that they managed to pull the act off at all. No cite, but I heard that co-conspiritors were surprised the WTC actually fell down. The likelihood of someone pulling off the same now is a much less than it was pre S11. (heads off corny joke - i mean on another facility)
Law enforcement prevents acts of terrorism, murder, cow-orker-tipping, …all sorts of things. This can be done without putting the population into a terrorised state, which is just playing into the terrorists hands. The terrorists are also the governments and the media.
$3500!!! where are you flying from… Koozbane? $817 return
Actually I got it from Qantas for Chicago to Sydney which had all its flights at around $2,950 (one way so maybe that hurts but I’m too scared to stay in America and want to come live with you guys ).
Really? I’m surprised the towers didn’t come down immediately. Those were BIG planes and they put BIG holes in the building. In the case of the WTC the outer walls were support for the building (along with the central core…this was a different design than most skyscrapers). I think it is fantastic that the towers survived the initial impact as well as they did (certainly saving thousands of lives by giving people a chance to escape). In hindsight I know they have found areas that could have been better but considering they were built to only withstand a 727 (737?) impact they managed fairly well. I figure the terrorists were thrilled to see the towers come down but I still think they would have expected more casualties. I remember watching the thing as it was all happening and recall thinking we’d be lucky if ‘only’ 10,000 people died. As bad as it all was I thank the fates it wasn’t worse.
[hijaak]Having visited AU on my honeymoon (Cairns, QNS); I can say I definately want to go back. You people really know how to do things (or at least make us tourists think you do). Your food sucks, but that’s more GB’s fault than yours[/hijaak]
To the OP: I think you are right that the media is blowing the threat way out of preportion. But honestly, that’s been their MO for 30 years now, what makes you think terrorism as a subject would be any different. The truth is, that at least here, you are much more likely to die in a car crash, cancer, or from a heart attack than anything else, certainly terrorism. We should be pissed that the government isn’t funding a War on Cancer and Heart Disease®.
How about a War on Ignorance. Cec could do with some help.
[hijaak response]I know George Bush has a lot to answer for, but blaming him for the crap food in Cairns is a bit rough.
Well the governments have. Do you have proof that the media (in any case not as monolithic an entity as you portray it) has been “promoting” such a war?
I find your analysis a little simplistic. The rate may stay relatively constant, but now that the effect of terrorist attacks has quite literally hit home, people are more (justifiably) attuned to it. Counter-terrorism was not a major priority in the public eye before Sept 11, and it should have been. In the 90s, all of al-Qaeda’s attacks, with the exception of the first WTC attack, were overseas (Saudi, Kenya, Yemen, etc.), and thus did not have the same psychological effect as 9/11. That is of course not only tragic, but also dangerous in that it left the door open for much greater attacks, with a public unaware of the threat, and a government not considering it a high priority.
Rather a silly contention if you ask me.
Cite? In any case, not really relevant. Domestic terrorism can’t be treated the same way as international terrorism. It’s much easier to arrest someone in Oklahoma than in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Once again, their actions were largely domestic. Only France and Spain really needed to worry about ETA – don’t know for sure but I’m sure the US, etc. shared intelligence if they had it. The groups today, particularly al-Qaeda of course, threaten everybody from the US to the Vatican to Singapore. In any case, no such groups really had the resources, large-scale strategies, or apocalyptic visions that al-Qaeda has. You need to learn more about a-Q if you think they are even comparable to the IRA or Baader-Meinhof gang. No other groups have essentially taken over countries. No other groups have consistently moved into conflicts and supplied fighters and capital – such as a-Q has done in Bosnia, Chechnya, possibly Somalia, etc. – to advance their cause and spread their ideology. All the other groups you cite, including even the older Palestinian groups (not the the newer Islamist ones), could be assumed to essentially be rational actors who could be counted on to value their lives above all. Even if the numerical data is constant, the nature of the threat, and necessarily the strategies for fighting it, have changed.
Hey, I would have rather we started fighting it when the other side did too. We unfortunately showed up a little late for the battle.
I’d advise asking the typical Czech or Romanian if communism was just a “bogey man”. Agree on drugs though, but since fighting violent criminals and attacking armies is what governments are supposed to do, it’s not really comparable to terrorism (which is why it makes me sick that Bush attempts to link the two).
I don’t know what’s your obsession with “sudden interest”. The fact that it is sudden, ISTM, is a direct result of the fact that it is belated. You still haven’t proven that the threat is hyped excessively. Yes, initial speculation about large-scale industrial accidents might be inaccurate, but I don’t see how that in itself is a serious threat, and in any case, maybe it would have been nice if a couple Arabs wanting to learn to fly but not take off or land had raised a few eyebrows.
Well, I guess even an idiot like me should be able to work it out, but I still don’t get it. Could be your lack of evidence though. Of course, the fact that Michael Moore has been cited in support of your case is telling.
The media is an organised monolithic entity. There is no group of people that conciously creates and communicates this organisation. It is organised in the sense that ‘it’ displays adaptive behaviour of a complex system.
The media is creating an exaggerated fear of terrorism in the general population by continually reporting on terrorism even though there are no terrorist event to report on. This leads to more media consumption and feeds back into an even higher level of reporting. All this can occur without a concious effort on the part of one person or a group of persons.
To proove this one would have to measure column inches in the press and time on air for ‘terrorism topic without a new event’ versus ‘terrorism topic with a new event’. This could be compared to ,say, road deaths. I have a feeling the ratio for the terrorism reporting would be much higher than road deaths.
I will answer you other points soon. Back to work …
Hmm, maybe we all need to learn more about Al Quaida. Your point about them “moving in” to conflicts is not really sustainable. Those conflicts were already there, those people were already there. They may have forged some links with Al Quaida (which in itself is a very nebulous organisation, however much GWB tries to present otherwise). I’m also not sure how valuing life makes a group/person not rational. The IRA, for instance, had no compunction against killing, but recognised that a WTC style bloodbath would be against their interests in a public relations sense. Al Quaida does not have this restraint. Doesn’t make them irrational.
Oh, and if you read the thread more carefully, Michael Moore was not cited in support of anyones case. Someone asked the OP if he had been watching Bowling For Columbine and he replied “no”
You think the populous were unjustafiably content prior to 9/11? It is up to the security agencies to manage counter-terrorism, not the citizens. The FBI/CIA did stuff up, for whatever reason on 9/11, but you can bet they are on the ball re box-cutter operated cruise missiles now. Having the citizens ‘keep an eye out’ for stange activities is taking it too far. It is creating an atmosphere of fear for little reduction in risk.
You are right that an electorate focussed on an issue does get governments attention, but in this case I suspect governments can deal with counter-terrorism with out encouragement.
No it isn’t.
Have a look at the link I provided before. The FBI Annual Reports states no successful international terrorist attacks on USA between 1993-1999.
Thwarted attempts by international terrorists.
1999 - One international
Canadian arrested
1998 - None
1997 - Two international
Letterbomb campaign with Egyptian postmark - 10 letterbombs found
Palestinian arrested planning to detonate bomb in NY subway
1996 - None
a-Q did not invent international terrorism.
How do you know a-q has apocalyptic visions? The Aum Supreme Sect might have (were practicing making nukes in outback Australia, before they were caught) - you arent getteng the two mixed up are you?
What? There is a ‘War on Terrorism’ all of a sudden. There has always been counter-terrorism, now there is public fear that has started with 9/11 and is continuing to be fuelled without justification for the purpose of selling media-product and improving the governments ratings.
I was refering to western countries. Similarly we are not considering the terrorist threat in countries like Israel, Somalia, Liberia, Indonesia, etc
A couple of Arabs, Greeks, lesbians, Calathumpians, whatever learing to fly, should not raise any eyebrows. Thats the point - now Joe Punter thinks every person wearing a hijab is a terrorist.
There is a perception now that we are in a dangerous climate of threat. The threat is the same, it is just is the public mind.
Dont be too hard on yourself. And guilt by association is a poor argument. Sounds like Mr Moore is doing a good job anyway - I will have to watch that movie.
).