Five Years On

[Muddypause]

I imagine that most of the world has had a succession of TV documentaries, drama-docs, reconstructions, investigations and reviews of the terrible attacks on the World Trade Centre five years ago. In the UK we seem to have been subject to several programmes a day about it for a week or more, on TV, on the radio, articles in the press, news coverage...

Personally, I find that even after five years, I still can't bear to watch those towers falling, or those planes crashing - whenever it's shown I have to look away; it's just too awful. And you've gotta ask what sort of people try and justify those events, tell themselves it was a good job well done, and make themselves feel good about all that heart-wrenching grief. But this saturation coverage is just getting absurd; it's reducing the event to a mawkishness, a ghoulish sort of voyerism. I find the whole thing distastful and inappropriate. And today's ceremonies of pompous, officialised grieving is also a bit beyond my sense of taste, and seems to lack any dignity.

The whole chain of events that day in 2001 was utterly terrible. At the time, I watched it all unfold, horrifyingly live, on television, and I still can't decide if that was TV doing its job at its best or at its worst.

It may be the most awful single event of modern times, and yet I can't help comparing it to events of 56 years earlier, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when two tiny atomic bombs were detonated above the cities, where the spread of damage caused the deaths of maybe 100 times as many people, many in terrible, untreatable pain, and the destruction of two whole cities, reduced to miles of rubble.

I can't see how we can reasonably escape that comparison; yet ask people which is worst, and the likely answer is the one we all saw on TV - again and again and again.

[Millymollymandy]

It may be the most awful single event of modern times, and yet I can't help comparing it to events of 56 years earlier, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when two tiny atomic bombs were detonated above the cities, where the spread of damage caused the deaths of maybe 100 times as many people, many in terrible, untreatable pain, and the destruction of two whole cities, reduced to miles of rubble.

I can't see how we can reasonably escape that comparison; yet ask people which is worst, and the likely answer is the one we all saw on TV - again and again and again.

I don't see how you can compare it to an atomic bomb at all! No comparison.

I only realised why they were blurbing on yet again about all this yesterday when I realised what the date was.

It'll be like Diana, the media will just go on and on and on and on and on and on................... zzzzzzz

[den_the_cat]

I've been to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and I've been to New York both before and after 9/11, and there really is no comparison.

New York was horrific, friends who were there then and are still there now are not really over it, the atmosphere is subtly changed from the shopping to the bars and it was a truly horrible event, clearly not achieving what the people who masterminded it claim to want to achieve (personally I don't accept that acts like that are genuine acts of faith from any religion)

But Hiroshima was damaged in a way that its impossible to begin to understand until you go there. I'm fairly pragmatic about life and death but I was really really upset in the museum, not only because of the events on the day but also the lasting legacy - physically as well as emotionally and mentally. Its the most horrific thing I've ever seen or ever want to see.

So that was worse by far - more than 65,000 people died straight away and tens of thousands more as a direct result, although it wasn't worse if you knew someone who died in NY I suspect. But even if they'd been able to film it then it probably wouldn't have had the impact around the world that 9/11 did for a variety of reasons. The film shot from inside the lobby of one of the buildings with the firefighters by the two broithers still haunts me (if you saw it you'll know why and if you didn't then best not to explain it).

When I a kid I seem to remember the news never showed dead bodies. Now its a strange evening if we don't see them. We've lost all ability to be shocked and that really cant be a good thing .

[Muddypause]

I've been to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and I've been to New York both before and after 9/11, and there really is no comparison.

You say that, and then go on to compare them...

You make the point I was trying to make, but have got hooked up on the word 'compare' as if it means 'similar'. These were both attacks of indiscriminate, mass destruction, but when you examine the two events, you realise there is a magnitudinal difference between them, with one being inflicted on America, and the other being inflicted by America.

However, one was captured live on TV and has been reviewed endlessly, and the other is a foggy tale which lacks that glamour. Both happened within a lifetime.

I find these poignant and inescapable juxtapositions.

[den_the_cat]

semantics aside, and carefully avoiding making political comparisons, it is very poignant.

I guess TV personalises events in a way that nothing else can, close ups of individuals crying and abandoned shoes make us feel a connection with individuals that we just don't feel when we're faced with a mass of destruction. The tsunami was devastating but relief funds didn't really flow in until the cameras got into the area and showed the effects, the same with the earthquake a year before.

And probably a lot of the 'appeal' of the NY issues is the conspiracy theories. Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory.....

[Andy Hamilton]

I studied a bit of abnormal psychology whilst at uni and it was mentioned that over 40% of new york people are suffering from post trumatic stress syndrome due to the roaming news.

No we don't need to see it all the time, it is not good for us. 15 mins of rolling news a day is enough to give you depression according to some stats.

You forgot to mention the Oliver stone film that is due for release too.

I do feel sorry for those who lost people during this time who are frequenlty reminded of it. For those who have lost close ones at any time you can understand how a simple reminder can bring back all that grief. I was watching a film at the cinema on saturday and one of the songs played was a cure song, it was the last song my mate played before he died and it was played at his funeral. I can't play it myself anymore and even 14 years on when I hear it is is not plesant. To have to sit through and see what caused a close ones death must be very traumatic.

The worst war in history was in the congo with millions killed and still fighting going on. We never hear about that. Our media is certainly bias towards what goes on here.

[Masco&Bongo]

For those who have lost close ones at any time you can understand how a simple reminder can bring back all that grief. I was watching a film at the cinema on saturday and one of the songs played was a cure song, it was the last song my mate played before he died and it was played at his funeral. I can't play it myself anymore and even 14 years on when I hear it is is not plesant. To have to sit through and see what caused a close ones death must be very traumatic.

When my dad died, we had John Lennon's "Imagine" at his funeral. I still can't listen to it over 10 years later. I've been know to walk out of restaurants/shops etc if it is beng played... the worst thing is, it's such a popular song. It's on as backing music on the TV and radio, in shops, in films etc...

[the.fee.fairy]

the thing that gets me is the undercoverage of the London Bombings.

We over show the footage of America being damaged and wounded...but we don't do the same with our own people.

We are encouraged to feel sadness and anger for the merican people, but nor for our own.

However, i am firmly in the J-9/11-OB camp...

[Masco&Bongo]

On the original topic...

I try not to watch all the stuff on TV. Yes, it happened, it was horrific and for the people who lost someone in 9/11 (or 11/9 if you are british) having to relive it in the weeks leading up to the anniversary must be heart-rending.

I'm so sick of watching disasters and stuff. Bad shit happens and its horrible, but sometimes, living in my tiny little village I feel so disassociated with it all....

Although the "mock"-umentary on BBC2 (I think) that was on Monday and last night was good (although probably 99.9% fictional)

[tremone]

I saw that show with Harvey Keitel aswell and while it was balanced in the sense that it did show high level failure within the US government it did portray Al Qaeda as terrorist madmen but did not show why so many were committed to this cause. It did not show the US foreign policy activities all over the world causing pain & suffering, we did not hear the number of people who have been killed over oil.
To fully understand why 9/11, Madrid & London happened we have to probe these questions and not simply put labels on whose good & whose bad.

Rgds,
Tremone

[circlecross]

It is shocking to watch the repeated coverage of the September 11th attacks; I always find myself gawping at the screen, open mouthed in horror. I suppose it is because it is something i lived through, and so remember how i felt, (utterly terrified as my dh was in Canary Wharf, and all I could think was "That's next - get out!")

Hiroshima, and the two world wars do astound me, but my reactions are learned, or gained through someone else's perspective. This doesn't negate them, but I cannot feel as personally shocked by them I suppose. I don't dwell on the bombings of NYC, or even London, even tho' I lived in London, and still have friends there, (and similarly certainly don't dwell on the death of Princess Diana!)

The sooner Britain and America get their act together and get wind power sorted out, the sooner we can all say, "we don't need oil - what are you going to do now!"

Susan

[Stonehead]

I find the events of September 11, 2001 no more (or no less) shocking than any other act of war or terrorism.

Yes, it was in the heart of the US; yes, the Twin Towers were hugely symbolic; yes, it was shown live on TV; and yes, it took a lot of people by surprise.

But it defies reason and previous experience to make it such a defining influence for our times. Historically, nations and peoples have faced much greater challenges, disasters, threats and attacks - and overcome them.

The enormous over-reaction since then has given al Qaeda much more credence than it deserves, played into the hands of extremists of all types (whether Islamic fundamentalists, neo-conservatives, Zionists, or any others), and successfully clouded the very real US involvement in the creation of networks likes al Quaeda.

Of course, while I'd say it defies reason and experience to make it such a defining event, it does not defy logic.

The real logic behind the constant reminders of 9/11 is that an unreasonable fear of terrorism, aided and abetted by governments and whipped up by a sales hungry media, is a very useful tool for those in power.

It's an age-old political technique. First, make the people very afraid (preferably of something amorphous and elusive); then convince them there is eminent danger to them personally, their loved ones, their possessions and their way of life; then convince the people that you, and only you can protect them.

The "war on terror" also masks other issues that are as much or even more of a threat to our well-being; it allows government to impose more controls and checks on the governed; it allows people to be manipulated for the benefit of huge corporations; and it gives politicians a very effective means for rendering their opponents powerless and making them look incompetent.

Oh, and the sooner the term " the war on terror" is shown the door, the better.

Terror is an emotion, not an enemy. How do you fight an emotion? You don't! Change the word "terror" to any other emotion and you can see just how ludicrous the phrase is. How about "the war on fear", "the war on happiness", "the war on sadness" etc.

Some would argue that it's a war on violent extremists. But there's a problem with this too. Extreme what? Extreme Islam - or extreme Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism etc?

And why leave it at religion, football can be as extreme. A group of hard-core Gunners fans have a bloody brawl with an equally fanatical group of Spurs supporters - that's violent extremism.

And as for the use of the word "war", well, that immediately implies the appropriate response to "terror", "violent extremism", Islamic fundamentalism and the like, is the use of force by people in uniform.

"War" effectively negates and disempowers other methods of overcoming threats and challenges, while also relegating those who oppose or dislike you to the status of "enemies", "collaborators" or as Tony Blair puts it those who suffer the madness of "anti-American views".

So, while I think that what happened on September 11 was appalling and terrible for the people involved, for their families and loved ones, I do not see why it's any worse than any previous act of war or terrorism and refuse to buy the endless streams of propaganda that seek to make it more than what it was.