The nice guy in me agrees with this assessment. But the cynic in me understands that Fox News, like the rest of News Corp, is extremely careful about the messages it sends out. While it's easy to dismiss Fox & Friends as a semi-mindless "lighter take on the news" show, it is precisely through these "soft" products that Fox has been most effective in communicating to the audience. They already have the serious news viewers - they know what Fox News is about and watch the channel because they agree with the message. The more casual viewers aren't there for the ideology, but they simply happen to like the personalities or the guests or whatever, and those are the viewers who must be reached. I can't imagine Fox News being merely "careless" about what is broadcasted, even, nay, especially on a soft prodcut. It's hard for me not to believe that he (or his producer) meant exactly what he said.
I can't argue your point because it's an assumption. I think you are reaching and reaching far. However, i also don't completely deny that one might have some sort of indirect correlation to the terrorism, but yet again, it's like calling the daughter of my 3rd cousin's uncle a close relative. Sure, poverty creates a lot of unhappy people, and obviously a lot of unhappy people produce hate. And what is terror, hate at its extreme. Yet, there are multiple reasons more important than poverty that cause direct effect on terrorism, such as lack of education, corrupt governments, and blind beliefs. My proof, for example, is that people in Former Soviet Union, not all, but a good share is poor, yet they don't blame other countries for it and certainly don't blow themselves up.
I see. Well we have to deal with Al Jazeera Europe over here. Sorry, I mean the BBC. Then again we do have The Daily Mail which is just as ludicrous but in the opposite direction. The day may soon come when The Sun is one of the more balanced and serious newspapers. If that day comes then the terrorists won't have won, we will have lost.
Precisely. The notion that terrorism of this kind is the permanent number one issue for the world is as hackneyed and myopic as you can get. Without wishing to be flippant, I'm sure many societies in the world would swap their situation with ours, occasional terrible attacks of this kind most assuredly included. Put simply, there is no way that "The War On Turrr" is the most significant issue faced by the global community today. And anyone who seeks to influence the political agenda by impinging on our leaders' right, duty and willingness to address more pressing issues, (even if it's in as niche a manner as this), is a disgrace to democracy and to western values. Dare I say it, anyone who thinks like that is letting the terrorists win (to use a favourite canard of the Bush administration). I think in most cases its the last one. For all the rhetoric about standing firm and never giving in, the automatic impulse of too many people, be it posters here blathering on about mushroom clouds over Trafalgar Square or cable news show hosts denigrating the human tragedy in favour of the ideological tangent, is to cut and run, to hide behind this false, hopeful, needy mirage of security that is promulgated by the official propaganda. I'm pleased to know that here in Britain at least, we will actually live up to the blah blah about solidarity and steadfastness and faith in our way of life - and we will continue with the more important issues such as reducing the incalculable misery of disease and poverty, of lessening the terrible impact of human activity on the environment.
The question is, who and what does deciding that terrorism is the world's number one issue empower? Who does thinking that way benefit? Therein lies the reason why such thinking is promoted.
Even if it's extremely unlikely, given the enormous cost involved, it's still a much greater concern than a small-scale, albeit likely, terrorist attack. It's easy to dismiss people who are worried about nuclear terrorism when you know you're 99%+ likely to be right, but if you're wrong you better be prepared to make a million apologies.
Ok then Ben, it's a deal. If Trafalgar Square turns into a melted glass bowl I'll be sure to seek you out and show due humility. Until then, anyone who plays the "mushroom clouds over Trafalgar Square" card with me in a debate on the relative prevalence of all the issues facing global society today is a witless pussy. This isn't about "nucular turr", this is about actually working for the preservation of our way of life, rather than just using that concept as an empty soundbite for Fox News hosts to spuff over. Our way of life is one in which we continue to do what we believe supports our vision of civility, humanity and progressive existence. Rather than basically waving a white flag, abandoning any pretence that other matters can still reign supreme in our minds and bunkering down to an endless, unwinnable "war" against the people who carried out the attacks yesterday and all the similar atrocities in Madrid, Bali, New York and elsewhere. THAT is "standing firm".
I suppose Liverpool isn't high on the target list. You're obviously taking a cue from Fox News and are phrasing the issue in simplistic, though articulate, black or white terms.
I suppose not, no. But then, most of my friends and family live in London and I spend two days a week there. So even in the event of us both being fatuous enough to imagine a nuclear explosion 300 miles south of where I am now would have no effect on me, I think it's fair to say that I face a big enough slice of your apocalyptic threat to have bought me an opinion on who is or is not a witless pussy. This sentence isn't actually saying anything. My statement is clear. Running around scaremongering and/or behaving as though nothing other than "The War on Turrr" should ever be foremost in our minds (as this Fox News dipshit did) is weak, counter-productive and should be - if you're not a witless pussy, at least - also be counter-intuitive for anyone who actually believes all the rhetoric about "our way of life".
So if poverty is a cause, why is it then that the rich Saudi royal family funds so much of it ? Why is it then that almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were well off well educated men ? Povery is a root cause for theft, it's not a root cause for terrorism. At least not this type of terrorism
I know what you mean and I agree to a point, although I'm not sure my thinking goes to the murky depths yours does . I believe thinking of this kind is promoted for very prosaic reasons - such as it's easier to be fighting a war on something as intangible and intractable as "Terror" than it is to shape a legacy of genuine human progress, be it through domestic issues such as health care reform and the economy or global issues like poverty and climate change. The principal proponents of this "War on Turrr" are in it just because they can't be arsed to do anything more difficult or complex. Naturally, pleasing their core constituents* and benefitting their sponsors along the way is an objective of sorts, but ultimately it comes down to just shuntling along for as long as they can get away with it and hopefully not having to break into a sweat doing it. * and that, of course, is where this dreary shadowplay is at its most useful - the "War on Turrr" segues beautifully with the sense of self that Bush's core support draws meaning from; "Whoohooo! We're talkin' tough and kickin' ass! God bless America!"
So true. The label "WAR" is convenient for anything but fighting terrorism. The label "WAR" is convenient if you want to sell a war in Iraq (done) or Iran or elsewhere. Wars that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism and everything to do with geostrategical issues. Directly related to dangerous fools dreaming of empires and global unrivalled hegemony. The terrorists dream about starting a dumb war, the clash of civilizations, which would be the biggest failure of mankind. That's the main motive behind these terrorist strikes. Unfortunately this is also useful for political ideologues and various lobbies who could take advantage of such a dumb war. There's a shared common goal both the islamic terrorists and western terrorists (ie ppl who use terror for their goals) would like to reach. And it's this imbecile war. The dangerous fools (ah ok it's the neocons) have no problem to LIE to instill fear into their sheeple, they know it's useful. They use terror. Terrorism is terrorism and you have to fight it with well known weapons. It's not like UK, Italy and Spain know nothing about it. They all succesfully fighted terrorism. No idiotic talk about being at war with ghosts you define at your will, no masochist castration of your own liberties, no playing with fear. I mean... didn't your parents or grands talk about what a war is? Mine did. I know what a war is. My mom lost her hair out of fear under heavy bombings. This is not war. This is terrorism. And luckily not the same sh1t it was in the 70's/early 80's. STOP BEING PVSSIES. Don 't let fear (and all the terrorists who manipulate it) dictate your thoughts.
I believe that as well; welcom to the murky depths. Ah, here's where I dive deeper: I think that there's a contingent of leadership and support that can't be arsed, as you submit. But there's also a contingent that simply doesn't believe in the possibility of anything better; they operate within the most dire constraints of realpolitik and argue that if they weren't [place whatever bastardization of policy here] somebody else would; that, given that "truth," they have the system that will ******** the world up least. In that frame, if the primacy of the war on terror allows those with that cold outlook to continue to exercise and maximize power, influence and authority such that it never is authentically exercised by anyone else (tyrants, or the people, doesn't matter), then that's a good thing, from that group's POV. In addition, there's also a fervent component of leadership/support that does in fact believe that Rapture is on the way and that, given the undeniability of that Second Coming, who really cares how health care is or is not implemented, or Kyoto, or anything else? God didn't ask us to worry about those things, just about Jesus' return; in that light the construct of the USA is only a tool, one to facilitate and support that "higher" end, and if the promotion of the war on terror serves to place resources in areas that allow the shaping and maintainence of the globe towards that Rapturous Event, then that's good from that group's POV. I think all those things and more (like fear-based "news," especially tied to that golden goose of a war that will never end, would certianly be embraced by corporate news machines tied to corporate persons legally bound to place profit above all other concerns) coalesce into this morass of ponderous narrow vision that produces crippled ideologies that end up in the forefront of world leadership, and end up making prime in our lives incidents of terror that, compared to the losses of life happening as we post, must come far down the scale of global calamity...if you think that babies everywhere have the same value, and are not just clinging, crippled, to the above frames on existence.
Why do people have such trouble with reading comprehension? Good gawd, y'all. I did NOT (operative word being "NOT") say that poverty is the root cause for terrorism. But terrorism is more likely to flourish where poverty is prevalent. Actual hijackers and planners of terrorism tend to be educated and well off by necessity because of the complexity of the attacks. However, they depend on the underclass for popular support and, for the lack of a better word, motivation. But my point, which I didn't think couldn't be any clearer, that some of the same conditions that allow poverty to become institutionalized - unstable/corrupt/repressive governments, imbalance in trade, lack of education, etc etc - are conditions for terrorism.
I'll congratulate the Chechens on the job well done. But once again, you're missing my point. It's not that the conditions for poverty perfectly match the conditions for terrorism. You still need someone with the power to communicate with the underclass and a fat wallet for a terrorist organization to rise. But conditions that create poverty and conditions created by poverty make the people more vulnerable to extremist rhetoric. Which is why I'm arguing that when you tackle the root causes of poverty, it makes it considerably harder for extremism to become popular.
I live in London and I'd rather have the lingering threat of attacks than hopeless limits on liberties with the promise of it helping to prevent terrorism. The net is never perfect and no matter what laws are passed and so on, the net cannot be completely closed.. It takes one to slip through the net to cause havoc. Hence the root of the problem should be addressed and not simply by declaring war on the effect (the terrorist who have been created). I would add that only so much can be done to prevent a nuclear attack. I doubt there is much anyone can do to completely prevent any risk of such an attack.
That's the whole argument of Bush's Iraq invasion. But he didn't realize a unjust war does him more damages national interests wise. Bush does USA a disservice.
Poverty yes. And I think in particular failed states where anarchy prevails have the ability to provide the kind of base of operations which terrorist leaders need in order to train and brainwash their pawns. Global environmental policy I am not so sure. Still, this is not an either-or proposition. That is where I dissagree with the Fox analyst who was quoted at the beggining of this thread. Just because fighting and preventing terrorism must be a priority, this doesn't at all diminish the fact that trying to solve the African problem and to alleviate poverty in general, and trying to find solutions to improve the environment should still be also topp priorities for humankind in the 21st century, even if they were to have no connection to terrorism at all.
I agree with you, and apparently the G8 agree with you, since they've pledged to double aid to poverty-stricken countries. ******** you, Fox News. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the US fought against hard numberical targets like the 0.7% of the national economy Blair was pushing for. For the record, we give just 0.16%. Ditto for our reluctance to set real, measurable, obtainable goals with respect to pollution (like Kyoto).
This guy is still an idiot though. Terrorist acts have killed what, 6-10,000 people over the last 5 years. A child dies in hunger every 5 seconds, that's 31,536,000 over a 5 year period. It's fairly easy to make a reasonable argument that more of the worlds resources should be devoted to rooting out hunger than rooting out terror cells. I suppose since probably 95% of those children dying are black kids in africa, this guy couldn't care less about em.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this: The government can in the drop of a hat pass laws that mandate that all of this country's Tv broadcasters have to switch over to HDTV format by 2009 or whatever, but making laws to have this countries' car manufacturers switch to producing cars that get better than 40 miles a gallon or that don't run on gasoline? Fuggadeboutit. Anything for better TV resolution, screw foreign oil independence and the environment.
Poverty is not the problem. Idle poverty, couple with Saudi financiers and a violent religious leadership is the problem. The devil will find work for idle hands... If you look at most internal revolutions, many of them occur when a group of people (Hitler, Mao, Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army, Pol Pot, etc) tap into violent unrest in the population. Usually this happens after a particuarly unfair government takes power, and when the economy is particularly poor. This has been the case since WWII for most of the Middle East. Governments of rich, oppresive monarchies supported with Western oil money, while the people starve in the streets. Add to that the Palestinian refugees still living in tents throughout the area, a lack of any real jobs, and you get a lot of single men milling about. Usually, these conditions lead to some sort of anti-Monarchy movement, or a Communist Revolution, or a Military Coup. In the middle east, Saudi exportation of money and revolutionaries to hotspots such as Afghanistan and the Iran/Iraq war kept these forces busy for a while. However, recent events have forced many to understand that terrorism is little more than exported anti-government movements. These revolutionaries, in response to the oppression of their own governments have turned to the common ideal; not a worker's revolution as in communism, not a parlimentary democratic revolution as in Roman-derived western countries, but towards the perfect Islamic state as described in the Koran. The problem is that the western countries have participated in the exploitation of the peoples of the middle east, and have for the most part been the largest backers of the oppressive monarchies. Therefore, in the same way that the North Vietnamese and North Koreans feel that the US was against their revolutions, so the Islamists feel that America is against their revolution. Because the Islamic revolutionists do not enjoy popular support for revolution in their homeland(s), they export terrorism to the west. Saudi Arabia and other wealthy leaders support and encourage this exportation, knowing that if it was held internally there would be serious concequences for the monarchs. Knowing the history of the French Revolution, and the propensity for beheadings in the middle east, well... you know the end of that story. IMHO, America's mistake has been in NOT supporting the revolutionary ideals of Iraqi expats, Saudi Arabian revolutionaries, and Iranian students. Many times the US has watched as reformers within these countries are 'snuffed out' by the monarchs so that 'stability,' i.e. stable oil supplies continue. We are stopping that somewhat with George W, but the American double-standard rears its ugly head once again with Saudi Arabia.
I apologize for the slight threadjack, but to reiterate the cliche, there's alot of truth to the thought...the Democrats are the party of no ideas, the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. I cannot figure out why the Dems haven't jumped on energy independence as a Big Idea. It plays to their environmental base, and it plays to centrists who realize we'd be alot better off if we aren't compelled to play a major role in the Middle East in order to keep the juice flowing. It's hard for a party out of the White House to be cohesive, but this is such a no-brainer.
Agree with your analysis until this paragraph. America's mistake was sticking its nose too long. Why can we just mind our own business? I don't think people around world would hate Americans so much if it were not for its interventionism.