In The Wake of 9/11

A spectre is haunting the world. A spectre that hangs on a global scale.

Just one decade ago, as the shadow of one structure fell from the Manhattan skyline, another erect itself in its place. Greyer than its predecessor, this new structure threw a dark hue over New York, America and the world.

Over the course of an intermittent ten years, the word terrorism has come to take a prevalent place in the life of many in the Western World. Those who are now coping with the legacy of 9/11, the so called 9/11 generation, live in a domain where attack comes in any form at any time, in order to strike fear into the civilised fronts of Europe, America and Asia.

Essentially, we live amidst the largest battle of ideologies since the Cold War.

Now, as in the period that saw a stalemate of superpowers, many people wonder whether today will be one that sees their daily life thrown into chaos. When once a battle was something that happened away from public view, not only is it now an inherent part of the media and our daily life, but it could impact personally. Whether friend, family member or threat to self, with attacks on trains in Spain, airports in Glasgow and tube systems in London, the shocking increase in the frequency, ingenuity and scale by which these terror threats manifest themselves means that peace is on hold.

Segregation is the first and most evident effect on society. Many Muslims in America recount the weeks and months and even years following the devastating attacks on the country that essentially left them without identity. Belonging to a community that took credit for the death of almost 3,000 people, these American citizens became shunned.

Some claim that their livelihoods were threatened, others lost jobs and racial insensitivity ensued with the rise of misunderstanding and hatred.

One day has come to personify an entire religion and cross section of society, without room for their defence.

Recently in France, there has been a ban on the burka in public places and those with professional careers. The French government advocates that this move is to enable people of all faiths to come closer, eliminating a potentially boundary between social groups. Others remain indignant and see it as a source of racism. Elsewhere, as the clean-up from riot torn Britain continues, there are a select number who laid blame on social divisions between ethnic minorities. These fragments that have broken away from daily society trace routes to problems established on that September morning in 2001.

Although subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have played out on a different continent, the psychological effects reach further. For those who know any serving member of the army, each day is a blessing, as no news is good news. Establishing Middle East war zones sets up a dichotomy by which there is a comfort that there is justice for the innocent people that lost their lives, yet the dangers of antagonism, overthrowing illusive figures and daily bombings adds to death tolls.

More importantly on home fronts, with Wootton Bassett ending its tour of duty as representative for those fallen, an entire town is bearing responsibility for public grief one last time. Across the Atlantic, one prison has become so intertwined with the myth of Army brutality in the name of public safety that there is a passive acceptance to its morals.

These are the truths of life post 9/11. Initial reactions to a plane hitting the North Tower were the cries of a tragic accident. Barely 15 minutes later, all such nativity and good nature was lost not only from those who lived in New York, but gradually across America and later Europe.

News channels now do not hesitate to question whether some unidentified disruption is the cause of a terrorist attack. Until September 2001, there would have largely been questions that came before this: what was known of the problem, or what were the authorities doing, or whether there would be a state of normality resumed soon?

Now: Is it a terrorist attack? Who claimed responsibility? What could have been done?

For all the expectations of attacks that are now a constant worry of the average person, still each extravagant declaration of a problem with a nation comes as a surprise. What did we learn from 9/11? Extremists still managed to successfully detonate a bomb in Spain. English police forces had tips of an upcoming attack on Underground facilities and yet services remained unprepared in the event. 

Norway, the latest victim, disbands the belief that only countries of certain proficiency and status on a global front are targets. Although only the actions of one man, the ripples of this double attack are testament as to how far social divisions are at a play on a global scale.

The worry is that such divisions are irreconcilable and beliefs incompatible.

From the ashes of ground zero, the ashes of dead businessmen and women, should instead rise a beacon of hope and a dedication, a pledge, that never again should deaths of innocent people be the bi-products of hatred.

However, this can never be the case if there remains a volatile system that constantly refers to broken social groups and minorities as outsiders.

Following 9/11, the role of the media should be to focus on stories and occasions wherein there has been a coming together, a conglomeration, of different segments of society. We all bear a responsibility to accept, understand and recognise the rights of individuals and groups and their ways of life.

Instead, in film, in press and on radio, the reverberated sound is one of hatred and denial. Hollywood has cashed in on a priceless tragedy. Blockbuster releases, such as ‘World Trade Centre’ and ‘Flight 93’, do not aid the public memory of the attacks on America. Rather they are demeaning to American citizens, whose lives were cut short, doing their jobs. In the press, we seek to lay blame solely on those in the East and quickly forget the role the West has played in previous decades; supplying arms and choosing sides is but all forgotten amongst the chaos.

Somewhat with bad taste, the humorous ‘4 Lions’ mockuments the plans of 4 would be terrorists. Despite the comedy film, it is this ironic take on something so serious that has a relaxed stance taken by public officials. If we are able to laugh in the face of adverse terror, why should we prevent it?

Media outlets are the voice of the 9/11 generation. Their function should be to allow a communication between those victims of attacks, to ease their pains and to bring society together.

A spectre of terror haunts the modern world. Whilst it is a unifying spirit, it is simultaneously a spirit of terrible trepidation and divisive deeds. Since its inception, this ghost of fear has served to make one group a scapegoat and one group a leader of peace. It lingers to separate world populous into those who are would be victims of terror and those who incite terror.

Instability abound, the Western world finds itself precariously balanced: for with power comes a duty of care. If it is to lead nations from the threat of external invasion, it firsts need look within and proactively protect its citizens.

9/11 serves as an unheeded warning. Most remain unprepared for an attack and many remain ignorant of the country and customs of those being invaded. The media breaches its own duty in not being a reliable source of information.

No longer can terrorism be swept under the rug: it is public domain.  

Currently, the Manhattan skyline is dominated by the spectre that stands at 1,368 ft. Soon, it will be joined at that height by World Trade Centre 1, or Freedom Tower. With Freedom comes the hope that the current ideology of terror will be washed by the waters of the fountain that circle the Twin Tower base: otherwise, there will progress a stalemate of fear, a waiting game of attack and consequence. 

 Interactive Ground Zero Site (BBC)

Countries where there have been attacks with more than 20 victims since 2001.

After 9/11: Global Effects (BBC)

"During the 1990s, world leaders looked at the mounting threat of terrorism, looked up, looked away, and hoped the problem would go away."

-John Boehner

Britain Burning: Cause and Consequence

With a certain apprehension, I write from just outside Manchester City Centre as the riots that have spread widely across the country are mounting for a fourth night of action: today, the first in which my city has been involved.

London and the rest of the UK are now under siege from within. Personal vendettas and localised looting is dominating cities nationwide with subsequent apparent anarchy. What began as an isolated incident in a London suburb on Saturday night (6/08/2011), has quickly and ferociously developed into the most diabolical scenes of rioting witnessed in this country in some decades. 

Trouble in Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Liverpool has been labelled ‘copycat’ behaviour, following the unparalleled waves of violence seen in London boroughs. The catalyst for this widespread outpouring of feeling was the shooting of one Mark Duggan. Whether one describes the actions as disaffected or a fuelled release of pent up frustration, there can be no apologies for the violence which has been directed at innocent members of the public, small business owners, and other people doing their daily business who now are incapacitated in some form.

Peaceful protests provide persons with an ample forum in which to highlight and showcase their grief and issues with public administrations. In general, they help in not only quelling dramatic attacks, but reflect nationwide sentiments that can be taken into account. Therefore, the march in Tottenham on Saturday afternoon was an event with justified merit that was later tarnished by mere opportunists and vandals. 

However, we need closer analyse underlying unrest that has plagued both the capital and certain national suburbs over the immediate period prior to these disasters. In Tottenham, the original focus of the violence, residents were becoming increasingly begrudging of police stop and search actions that are reported to have been widely unjustified and yielded few results for public safety. With the mounting power abuse that the police actioned in the surrounding areas, there became a unilateral belief that the scaremongering tactics were introduced to reduce crime and yet had intruded on lives to such an extent that police were subject of ridicule.

Of course, continual mistreatment and suspicion of youths in the past has led to a mounting air of mistrust that has featured predominantly as the violence has spread. In blaming a great deal of social problems as rising solely from those of young adult status, the support of those under-25 is understandable, even if not condonable. 

Moreover, Tottenham is an area that suffers rife unemployment. Together with later targeted Lewisham and Peckham (which were featured in a recent newspaper editorial as amongst the top 25 areas in the country for people out of work), onlookers are able to establish that the dissatisfaction is also fed off both lack of job prospects and the subsequent idle and sedentary lifestyle that comes hand in hand. Sparking of other social injustice only provided a platform for this plethora of misfortunes to manifest in physical outbursts.

In addition, spending and budget cuts amidst global recession, Eurozone crises and worldwide credit down-gradings only adds to the country’s financial woes. The widespread effects are that as well as unemployment, local facilities and amenities shut down so there are further disruptions and lack of distractions in daily life. Ironically, for all the attacks, no one has launched a mounted assault on big businesses at Canary Wharf. 

More to the point, the number of destroyed independent businesses is completely inexcusable: almost as if vengeance for those few in the area who were struggling with small enterprise pressures already. Two teenage girls speaking to a BBC reporter this morning said that “This is to show the rich that we can do what we want.” However, there appears no distinction between the rich and those who have private, small businesses that do not make the mega-buck revenue of which the girls naively spoke. 

Reverse dichotomy: this is certainly not the image of the Big Society that Cameron had in mind.

Although the public are being heard, this is no way to reverse any standing belief of disenfranchisement: but rather provides reason that tighter measures need be in force to govern the public. 

Army drafting, water cannons, tear gas, Tasers. Over the past 72 hours, there has been a great deal of social debate as to how the country’s management should proceed in order to restore order and maintain livelihoods for the majority. Options are many and certainly diverse.

However, it is not so much dealing with the immediate onslaught as the subsequent aftermath. Perhaps one of the poignant comments after pictures from London fires have been circulated was that “it looks as though London has been bombed, in a war”. Irrevocable damage has been incurred and the mounting costs are certainly a serious issue and concern for all involved. 

Already a country dealing with daily money misery, the cost of the cleanup will cause national taxes to be increased. The unprecedented need for extra dependence on the emergency services will rise the amount of money needed to be paid to the state. Stockbrokers will invest less as millions is wiped off those businesses who are unable to deal with the continued clashes, whilst insurance prices will rise in supposedly troubled cities, such as those aforementioned.

In an already struggling economy, the sense of any such riots is lost (if, for that matter, it existed in the first place). Despite this entry having acceded money issues as facilitating events while they were first brought before the public, there is only a continual problem in our nationals thus wasting their own money in the long run: ergo constructing a continuum of debt generation.

Taking a different slant, government officials convening emergency Cobra meetings and recalling parliament will for a long time yet have an image of an unruly mob in their mind when putting forward any changes to country legislation. While some may argue that it is government action which has caused unrest, these scenes have only served to further widen the divide in trust between those in Westminster and their citizens: tougher rule would appear a more democratic action in the interests of the majority.

Information released just today details that the bullet found wedged into a police officer’s radio, at the scene where Duggan was shot on Thursday, was in fact police issue. The most recent statement at this time is that there is no evidence of the victim having shot at the met. Since violence had pre-empted such a finding, there is no sense how this may yet effect the public feel towards the riots. Yet, this is also a crucial piece of information regarding how police will be viewed within their constituencies: little trust being honoured with unjustified action.

But more than these monetary and bureau escapades, the real consequence will be a loss of public sentiment and compassion, especially toward youths (as earlier mentioned, blanket punished). Living with the shells of buildings and lost businesses haunting high streets across the country will always conjur images of a week where citizens, in “a moment of madness” according to lawyers convening in courts today, simply took to wanton destruction to prove a public power without direction or motive. 

What began as a moving and socially meaningful demonstration, now a marred public effigy to anarchy.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-incident-map

The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Atrocious but necessary”.

A little more than a week ago, Norway became the latest country of the EU to suffer a terrorist attack. Whilst the world is used to outside agents or people working on behalf of foreign terror groups acting against a particular nation, these events stood out because their perpetrator was in fact a Norwegian as well. 

Anders Behring Breivik bombed the capital city Oslo on the 22^nd July just hours before he started to gun down people at a youth holiday camp many miles away on Utoeya Island. The corresponding attacks across different regions of the country show a precise and vicious will; a will deemed by Breivik as “necessary” for his country’s future. 

As concerning as both the events and the lack of response appear to the outside world, the restrained grieving is much more common in Norway, and today, the country’s PM warned against a ‘witch-hunt’ following the crimes.

Justifying these horrors is indeed hard to accept, however the suspect has laid out his plans in a manifesto style for the past three years and consequently his supposed reasoning behind the attacks is laid out in rather a simple manner. Similarities to Nazi doctrine have been drawn, but more and more, people are describing the events of 22^nd July not as terrorism, but extremism.

Extremism is difficult to quantify in that it may encompass elements of terrorism, exuding fear amongst many, but in addition, there is often a political agenda at work. Geir Lippestad, who is Breivik’s lawyer for the case, said that “He wanted a change in society, and from his perspective, he needed to force through a revolution.”

To understand this further, we need consider that Breivik’s writings talk of the left’s supposed lenience and call for multiculturalism as negative moves for the country and as a general worldwide. He believes that the ‘Islamism’ of Europe need be prevented, not for common reasons that plague many such as job loss or fear of the different but, so as to preserve national identity and remain focussed on the country’s own populous and well-being. The seemingly contradictory killings were merely means to an end: look how easy it would be for someone to attack. After all, Breivik had been politically active and found out himself that he did not succeed with usual political tools and so resorted to violence.

Described as a quiet man locked in his thoughts, there is no doubt in the mind of Anders Behring Breivik that his actions were “atrocious but necessary” and he denies any criminal responsibility. It remains to be seen whether there will be a plea of mental instability, ergo negating mens rea: for without a vicious will there can be no vicious crime. Of course, such a statement would undermine the (for want of a better word) message for which this man stands. If insane, it would go against his claim for a social revolution.

What is now “atrocious but necessary” is a full scale investigation into the extent of extremism within Europe, as a source of continued threat from within. Whilst it may be a subject rather avoided, if we are to understand the concerns which drive many to such views, there needs be a greater public forum than internet chat rooms - lives could be saved. For as Breivik himself quoted: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests." (John Stuart Mill) and for their own safety, this is a belief in which 100,000 should surely have an interest.