Eddie the Ed?

Maybe I’m being over sensitive but this is a really ordinary piece. Filled with latent anti-Americanism, recycled and staid arguments, and a sarcasm (‘Happy Anniversary’) that is distasteful. Whatever your views on the American reaction following the 9/11 attacks, views which I’m sure I and many others on the site would share, perhaps today’s not the best day to make them.

It must be exhausting being so angry all the time.

NAH: On the contrary – I think it’s the fact that the issue has become so ‘ordinary’ that merits re-stating it. And I think this is precisely the day to be doing it.

Yes, it’s old news. Does that mean it’s not still important, not still directly affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world today? I don’t think so.

‘The use of the American date convention, ‘9/11/2001? (rather than 11/09/2001, as it would have been reported in the UK and many other nations)’

Haha.

I agree that this IS something people need to accept. 9/11 was a tragedy, but it’s been blown out of proportion for the Republicans’ political ends, and it should be looked at a little more objectively.

I couldn’t help thinking that the reaction to it was a bit like the reaction to Princess Diana’s death; distinctly emotive and one-sided.

Have you ever had something happen to you that was so bad that you though you could not cope,that you wanted to die?Next time you write “Everybody do the post-9/11 dance” please remember all the people in the world who have.Please remember HATE is what started all this.

“Because this atrocity occurred on American soil, it is implicity weighted with more significance and solemnity than any of the many, many atrocities that have occurred since. When we say ‘9/11? rather than ‘the world trade centre attacks in 2001?, we collude in affording the event and its victims disproportionate significance, significance that starts to justify the atrocities committed in its name.”

OK. For starters Americans are obviously going to call it 9/11 because it was an attack on them. I presume Indonesians have a similar term for the 2004 Tsunami – they don’t call it “the 2004 Tsunami” or whatever – and we have “The Blitz” not “The German bombing campaign against London” and, in fact, every community since the dawn of time has had pet terms for major events that happen to them… big deal.

Now if your point is that people *other* than Americans should think before using the “9/11″ then this is a bit more interesting and certainly there’s a sense in that by doing so we’re appropriating the attack for ourselves as if it were an attack on *us* – now one could very well argue that it was in fact an attack on us (“The West”) but that’s debatable.

If that is your point though you need to make it clearer and stop this weird nitpicking about whether months come before days.

‘Have you ever had something happen to you that was so bad that you though you could not cope,that you wanted to die?Next time you write “Everybody do the post-9/11 dance” please remember all the people in the world who have.Please remember HATE is what started all this.’

Paul – yes, for your information I’ve had some bad things happen to me, things that I’d prefer not to discuss in a forum quite so public as this one. I’m not sure it makes me any more or less qualified to comment on issues like this, because empathy is a massively important factor when what you’re dealing with is the aftermath of tragedy. I’m just not sure it should be offered to certain victims and not others.

I’m not sure what that fact that ‘HATE’ (I’ve preserved your capitals) ‘started all this’ has to do with anything. HATE was a precursor and, equally, a consequence of the World Trade Centre bombings. Hate, in fact, is what undercuts most atrocities. Hate is what lingers over Iraq. Hate is, in fact, precisely what the Western world needs to move beyond in order to avert more bloodshed – if that’s truly what it means to do. Since when was more hatred the appropriate response to HATE?

Rememberance isn’t a celebration, so perhaps it was a miscalculation to talk about dancing in this context.

People get emotional when emotive subjects are raised, people get rational when it is demanded we think. So let’s not talk about emotions, let’s talk about ideas.

Meanwhile, in another universe…

It would be in bad taste if it wasn’t such drivel.

Have you ever been to America?

Thomas @ 8 and everyone else: if you actually click on the link, you’ll see that ‘everybody do the post-9-11-dance’ is a link to a zeitgeisty song about UK political culture in the aftermath of the events of 11/09/2001. I’m not, in fact, suggesting that everybody get up and dance, and neither is the artist in question.

cjcjc: yes, I went to America once when I was a little girl. what’s your point?

Laurie, you have a funny understanding of ‘zeitgeist’. It tends to only exist in the present. So not only are you guilty of bad taste (on two counts), but also inaccuracy (on two counts).

I think it’s obvious what his point is, it’s not relevant though

What I want to know is what is the point of things like this :

“But some isolated, cosseted individuals are still of the opinion that suddenly not feeling entirely safe and superior any more gives them the right to have a seven-year temper-tantrum costing millions of lives and billions of dollars.”

*Millions* of lives? Arguably there have been maybe 700,000 deaths in Iraq since 9/11 but that’s a very high estimate, Afghanistan deaths are much lower, and elsewhere lower still. So I don’t see how you get even 1 million let alone several. So why weaken your argument with such inaccuracies?

Woobegone: a recent Opinion Business Research study estimates that there have been 1,033,000 unnecessary deaths in the Gulf since the war started. That deserves the moniker ‘millions’, in my extremely humble opinion.

Missed that one. Pluralising a singular million for effect – good work!

Does the research you refer to state whether these unnecessary deaths are attributable to the conflict, or is that an assumption on your behalf.

Well that’s the kind of reference that should in your article in the first place to stop nitpickers like me. Always provide a source for your numbers or we won’t go away.

It’s fair to say that that 1 million is the highest casualty estimate that I’ve ever seen, I doubt that it’s true just on the grounds that it’s the highest. Maybe it is, a lot of informed people would dispute it though.

The research states that they’re attributable to the conflict, yes, although they may not necessarily be violent deaths.
Whilst we’re talking bad taste, I don’t think nitpicking over numbers when those numbers are over a million is in very good taste at all. I don’t think ‘a singular million’ needs to be pluralised in order for it to have ‘effect’. One million, thirty-three thousand deaths, and counting. That’s a lot, don’t you think? That’s tragic, don’t you think? So perhaps whilst we’re commemorating the World Trade Centre victims we should also remember the collateral damage. I’m just saying.

“I don’t think nitpicking over numbers when those numbers are over a million is in very good taste at all. I don’t think ‘a singular million’ needs to be pluralised in order for it to have ‘effect’”

I’ll take the latter first: you beg the question of yourself – why did you then? In which case describing criticism of your inability to distnguish between the odd million as ‘nitpicking’ is in particularly bad taste according to your terms.

Attacking others is no excuse for not showing contrition. As I’m assuming this episode was originally intended to be about.

Finally when questioning attribution it is generally good form to provide some details. Does this figure of a million deaths refer to those who died of causes directly caused by the conflict (which means not just by violence) or does it include those who died from indirect causes (which may or may not have happened anyway)? Are road accidents included in the terms (even if cars were run down or destroyed by APCs)? Do the figures include deaths attributable to the collapse in infrastructure (such as by a failure to supply health resources, or essential services etc)? Does the statiistic include ‘notional deaths’ from adjustments to national birth rates etc?

I could go on, but because your article raises more questions than it answers and is below your usual standard I won’t waste any more effort.

“It would be in bad taste if it wasn’t such drivel.”

It’s in much better taste than a nauseating “tribute” from the people that continue to capitalise on the atrocity at every opportunity. That they do so forces us to speak against it.

Ben

Thomas,

last point first – the figure does include all deaths attributable to the conflict by direct and indirect causes, although it does mention that these are all ‘violent and unnecessary deaths’.

And I really hope you’re not asking me to show contrition here. The point I was trying to make, the point you’re trying to avoid, is that the deaths directly resulting from the US/Allied response to the Twin Towers disaster are already *in* the millions. If refusing to respond to or acknowledge that point properly ain’t nitpicking then, my dear, I don’t know what is.

And the North American reading is the slow finger-tracing of a frightened toddler.

Do not infantilise a whole nation.
You really have no idea what the North American “reading” might be.

I have visited the US approx. once a month for the last 20 years.
Not just NYC or LA, but everywhere from Des Moines, to Boise, to New Orleans, to Minneapolis. Even Alaska for goodness sake.

I can tell you that there is no one “reading” – there is a multiplicity of responses to 9/11, to Iraq, indeed (as you would expect in a country that size) to everything that happens.

Laurie, all death is unnecessary, but so too is it always inevitable.

Adjusting the numbers for the sake of ease or effect by rounding or generalising diminishes their impact by reducing the spiky and specific truthfulness.

It was originally claimed that 6,000 people died when the WTC was attacked and I remember there were fears at the time of its occurrence that that figure may have been 10 times higher – in the immediate aftermath we simply didn’t know how how many people were in the building on that day at that time of day (even now the exact figure is beyond us as we are left with the best guess scenario).

So when you claim such a large figure for such a large series of events consequent to the 9/11 attack you substitute real shock and empathy for a depersonalised awe and powerlessness.

For those of us with real connections to the events you refer to your attitude is an insult and it is unhelpful, you’d be better off saying nothing rather than trying to insensitively promote your personal political hobbyhorse off the back of something you don’t know and can never understand.

cjcj @20: I’m talking about the political and military response, not the responses of individual US citizens, who, I’m assuming, can think for themselves.

Thomas – I really hope you’re not calling those million deaths ‘inevitable’. That would be both heartless and inaccurate.

I don’t think your personal connections to the even, whatever they may be, trump any discussion of its consequences. And until you actually engage with the terms of what I’ve posted here rather than repeating your argument with amy phrasing, rather than my statistics, I’m not playing anymore.

My statistics still show, at minimum, 80,000 innocent civilians suffering violent death at the hands of US and allied troops in Iraq. Where’s your response to that? Or is that something I shouldn’t mention, because it’s ‘insensitive’ to Western victims?

You call this a discussion at which you are “playing” and you attempt to accuse me of heartlessness!

Perhaps you could tell us how you are able to claim an interest in these issues, or is it just that you are reacting to an article you idly read somewhere?

Thomas, on the contrary – I’m saying I’m not ‘playing’. I believe it’s you who’s treating this whole discussion lightly.

I think my right to claim an interest in these issues starts with my citizenship of a country under a government I didn’t vote for that is colluding in the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians in the Gulf without the support of its people. I think my right to claim an interest goes back to my membership and participation in anti-war movements from the age of 14. I think my right to claim an interest stems from the deep sense of betrayal by our political leaders that a great deal of people in my generation, across the world, feel after our appeals for peace and tolerance were ignored.

So no, I’m not taking this idly, or lightly. If I were I’d have stopped caring after I realised that nothing I or millions (yes, millions) of people like me could say was going to make any difference to military action in Iraq. I still like to believe that we can be better than this. I still feel that global injustice matters, matters hugely, wherever it occurs, and I still think that we have a right to respond and to protest.

And that, love, is why I’m not playing anymore.

Only a fool starts something they cannot stop.

Just as you initiated this thread, so to did the USA initiate the conflict in Iraq – the difference is when you send the troops in you can’t go crying home to mummy.

All your attempts at self-justification in comment #25 provide zero reason or indication why you specifically can take on this subject nor do you provide any qualification, specifically when your resulting behaviour proves you to be incapable of providing the necessary insight to resolve the issues at the heart of it. Just like the George W. Bush.

Yet unlike any elected politician, you take advantage of your position to abuse others without any mechanism or feeling of duty by which to hold you accountable.

I can only offer you the advice that you still have much to learn.

Wooebegone:

On the circa 1,000,000 excess deaths that have occurred in Iraq, see here:

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2007/06/the_deaths_in_the_pottery_barn.php

There is quite a detailled discussion on this figure, here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/06/deaths_in_iraq_updated.php

And that estimate is a year old.

Laurie, would it be helpful to point out that the vast majority of the “millions” (or 1,033,000) of those killed post 9/11 are attributable not to military action carried out by US and allied troops but largely to sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia militia, foreign Al-Qaeda jihadis flocking to Iraq, Iranian led clandestine forces and other various radical Islamic nut jobs?

The truth of the matter is that the US and it allies, having removed a tyrannical dictatorship in Iraq, sought to provide security and stability. Initially they were unsuccessful in this because they underestimated he enthusiasm various Islamic groups had for slaughtering each other. Glad to say this is no longer the situation; the US has been incredibly successful of late in achieving their objectives. (Congratulations to Gen. Petraeus)

It’s a shame (not to say inconvenient) that the reality and the bald facts don’t fit into your thesis of the US being the Great Satan. Can we expect a piece about the “millions” of deaths and tthe destruction meted out by Islamic jihadis on innocent civilians, you know, for a bit of balance?

Laurie :

“My statistics still show, at minimum, 80,000 innocent civilians suffering violent death at the hands of US and allied troops in Iraq. Where’s your response to that? Or is that something I shouldn’t mention, because it’s ‘insensitive’ to Western victims?”

most of them died at the hands (er, bombs) of Iraqi militias and extremists. The invasion is still responsible for these deaths of course, but not directly, or exclusively. They weren’t intended although they should have been forseen.

“Can we expect a piece about the “millions” of deaths and tthe destruction meted out by Islamic jihadis on innocent civilians, you know, for a bit of balance?”

Actually, could someone please write a piece on the millions – and it actually is millions – who are dying of non-sexy causes like diarrhea and malaria, dwarfing by far the number of people killed by sexy things like Jihads and Imperialism?

Don’t make me write it myself, people.

Talking about anniversaries of horrifying tragedies, can we expect a belated retrospective on the Omagh bombing considering the ongoing civil case which.

It would be interesting to see how this subject would be addressed in the light of how it highlights the debate over strengthening of police powers to counteract terrorism. Considering GCHQ was illegally monitoring the bombers and failed to pass onto the local constabulary the information they had gathered which could have prevented the attrocity – because intelligence chiefs knew their actions were illegal – suggests that some of the adjustments to laws covering information gathering techniques were long overdue and therefore that the more extreme cries of pacifist libertarian wing were meaningless irrelevancies.

But I doubt any strongly politically-motivated commentators like the author of this piece are actually worried about all the victims and potential victims they wail about, so it’s unlikely that Omagh crosses their radar screen at all.

Why the silence on this subject – is it too inconvenient?

But I doubt any strongly politically-motivated commentators like the author of this piece are actually worried about all the victims and potential victims they wail about, so it’s unlikely that Omagh crosses their radar screen at all.

Y’know thomas, it never ceases to amaze me how someone who’s clearly able to debate complex issues at a high level can then resort to attacks on a person’s character which frankly belong in the gutter. Or in the comments section on Guido’s blog. Nothing wrong with being a misanthrope, of course, but prospective commenters will be disinclined to engage with you in good faith whilst you continue to betray a sense that those with whom you disagree are either feeble-minded or morally inferior. Ms Penny is clearly neither.

Now that I’m done with the whole ‘holier-than-thou’ routine, a word on your comment about Omagh. None of the reading I’ve done on the matter has implied that GCHQ had acted illegally by listening in to the bombers’ telephone conversations. As I understand, it was commonplace during ‘the troubles’ for suspects to have their phones tapped, and, providing the proper authorisation was given (and there’s not currently any reason to suspect it wasn’t), I don’t see anything untoward here. Indeed, the primary issue doesn’t appear to be the legality of GCHQ’s actions, but an apparent failure of communication & cooperation between GCHQ, Special Branch and local law enforcement in responding to the threat.

Like I said, this is just from my initial reading, so I’m happy to be shown why I’m wrong. But if I’m correct in this, then the moral to this outrage is that it’s all very well having the toughest anti-terror laws, but when those agencies charged with our protection can’t even work effectively with the powers they do have, then we should assess how we can improve their effectiveness before we do anything else.

Neil, if I wanted or needed a boost to my ego I wouldn’t care about political issues and I’d be off somewhere where the sun shines all day long, however as I’m here in a completely amateur and non-representative capacity nobody else suffers or has anything to lose for any failings on my behalf – I’m perfectly happy to set myself up for a fall if it means nobody else trips up themself inadvertently and everyone gets an improved view as a result.

Sometimes it is a necessary thing to shout down some of the tabloid excesses and if it also sweeps away some of the ornamental frippery encouraged on other more commercial sites then that’s a greater bonus.

Now, suppose you tell me which is a more productive form of encounter – one in which all comments are couched in obfuscation, self-congratulation and genteelery, or one in which issues are dramatised by extreme contrast? Nah, me either – I think it is important to strike a balance.

In the same way we need to appreciate the attacks on America and at home in equal part. Likewise I seriously doubt that our intelligence and security services function soley on the basis of either conspiracy or cock-up alone.

Only by considering all sides of the equation will we come to the best possible understanding of the issues, the motives at the heart of them and the way they function on each other. Anything less is wholly, completely and absolutely unacceptable.