September 11
Today marks the fifth anniversary of the attacks in the US on the World Trade Centre. It happened late in the evening our time and, because we often watch DVDs in lieu of actual TV, I didn’t find out about what had happened until the next morning. The news came in snippets at the cafe where I bought my latte on the way to work, and as I rushed into work to find out more information on the net.
It feels very odd to remember an event like this in the way of commemorating it. For me, the message of the September 11 attacks is a scary one. For all of the recriminations afterwards, I have always felt that it demonstrated something powerful about the nature of terrorism. If there are people who are so determined to cause terror that they would hijack planes for the purpose of crashing those planes into buildings, then they are pretty hard to deter. This was something that was unimaginable at the time. I remember thinking that it made a peverse kind of sense that warnings of this kind of event were not taken as seriously as they should have been. Because the mind tends to dismiss the likelihood of such barbarism.
Even now I am convinced that the one thing that we can say about the “modern” terrorist threat, is that they have an unequalled determination to create terror. And that sooner or later that determination will succeed in creating terror. The UK police forces might have foiled an attempt to explode multiple planes with liquid explosives, but they could not foil four guys walking into train stations with backpacks on their backs.
In the wake of September 11, some of the US response rubbed me the wrong way. There is something inherently naive about being shocked that the same terror which happens in other parts of the world could visit you where you live. But at the same time I expect that sometime in the next five or ten years, barring a change in the world political order, we will see a terrorist attack on Australian soil. And our response will be equally naive, equally bewildered and equally incoherent in response.
For now it sometimes seems futile to pray for peace, because it seems clear that peace will never return in the same way that we might have imagined it would. And when we look at the way of the world, we see a world which is profoundly broken and where the powers and principalities have twisted creation to their own ends. And I consider how futile it sounds for me to talk about bringing forth the reign of God into such a place. Yet I wonder whether it is only now that we begin to truly appreciate how audacious and monumental our task really is.
At my kaleo group the other day I spoke of a scene from the Last Temptation of Christ which always affected me powerfully, though it is a simple scene. It pictures Jesus preaching in Nazareth using the words of the gospels. The crowd is heckling him and as I watch that scene, I agree with the crowd. He does sound like a looney person. These simple words which I read in the pages of scripture and which seem so familiar to me are actually ridiculous. They are shocking and provocative and doomed. And that is what we have pledged to follow and repeat and incarnate.
I wonder if the pain and brokenness in the world will help remind us that our task is not a genteel middle class pursuit. That Jesus’ words are not just those phrases which have become worn and comfortable from repetition. We march into the blackness and seek to shine a light.
September 11th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
This Sunday we are hosting Donna Mulhearn at our Cafe Conversation - her topic will be Christians against all terrorism - she describes the act of sitting in an air conditioned office planning the bombing of a town in Iraq as being as much an act of terrorism as sitting in a cafe planning to bomb a bus in London.
I agree.
What happened in America was aweful. What is happening now in Iraq and Afganistan is worse - more than 3000 peopole ahve lost their lives - many of tem (and I don’t know the exact figures) were women and children. Innocent civilians.
But what can we do? Telling our leaders we don;t want our countries involved in acts of terrorism in te name of peace and democracy would be a start - shuot it out from the roof tops - go down to your local MP’s office and tell him to his face to tel John Howard to bring our troops home.
Violence is no answer - join a peace group - atend non -violence workshops such as are run by AVP (Alternatives to Violence Project) learn to lead a workshop and start leading them in your communities. If each one of us refuses to be violent…the violence will have to stop!
September 11th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Greg, whilst I share your sentiment for world peace, the bit at which we part company is how we believe this might be obtained. The reality is that it is not our willingness to stand up to Islamic terrorism that leads to death and destruction; it is our weakness and disunity. It is not appeasement of Islamic fundamentals that would give them cause to lay down arms; it would be our subjection to their religion and law.
Was George Bush right to take on the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam’s regime in Iraq? I think he was. Was John Howard right to support that war? Yes, I think he was. How do I reconcile this as a Christian? By reading my bible and learning from over three thousand years of history. Do I like it? No I don’t, but remember that this is not a war of our choosing.
The final question, in response to the Donna Mulhearn’s insinuation that George Bush is a terrorist, will be seen by what history has to say (it has the gift of hindsight). In the meantime the attached article puts an objective view of America’s performance on the record.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20378770-601,00.html
Lobby John Howard to pull troops out of Iraq? Sorry, I won’t be there.
tb
September 11th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
After watching a few documentaries on the 9/11 attacks I am now convinced that it was an “inside” job by the US Goverment…
A totally outrageous claim right? Well no, not after you look at the facts and take the actual evidence into hand
The World trade centre went down because it was a controlled demolition, not because a plane flew into it.
It is the only building in the world EVER to collapse upon itself because of a plane hitting it.
A really good place to start with regards to the facts of the 9/11 attacks is “Loose change 2″
Here is a link
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+change+2nd+edition
This is a very factual doco that just presents the facts and does not attempt to explain the “why”
WIGGY
September 11th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Tbokar, Osama bin Laden’s warnings to the West are always couched in terms of a demand to be left alone. I’m not so convinced that Islamists *do* want to subject us to their religion and law.
A couple of questions for you - because your post hints at a lot of things but doesn’t elaborate:
Why do you think we didn’t invade Bali?
Can you explain what you have learnt from 3000 years of history?
What do you mean by “this is not a war of our choosing?”
I’m not convinced that history can answer all our questions, since history is written by biased human hands.
Re: the piece from the Australian - I’ll say it outright, I’m frequently angered and outraged by Sheridan. I’d note that he’s an opinion writer, not a news journalist - he writes opinion pieces, which are by their nature not intended to be “objective”! Sheridan’s coverage of indigenous Australia, the Solomons, East Timor and Iraq is frequently racist (his construction of Pacific Islanders has been appalling), and his constant refrain is “we need more guns”. Neither he nor his newspaper have any concern for free and fair debate or factual accuracy, as demonstrated by the fact that numerous “experts” on Pacific issues from the Pacific and Australia responded to his coverage of the April riots in the Solomons, but Sheridan neither altered his writing nor did his paper publish the responses.
I’m all for varied points of view - and I’d hasten to add that while I opposed the invasion of Iraq, I now believe that we should stay and clean up the mess - but an opinion piece, let alone one from Greg Sheridan, will hardly present an “objective view of America’s performance”.
September 11th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
I meant to respond to this…
Dan said “I wonder if the pain and brokenness in the world will help remind us that our task is not a genteel middle class pursuit. That Jesus’ words are not just those phrases which have become worn and comfortable from repetition. We march into the blackness and seek to shine a light. ”
Yes, yes, yes Dan. And as we march into the blackness, we see how much light Jesus’ words have. I know it’s a bit churchy to say it, but it really is true that it’s only in the dark that we can see the light - my relationships with people on the margins of our society and economy that I find the greatest ability to hope - last night, when I was full of panicky questions about the future, two guys who came to our free dinners provided me with simplicity and wisdom that I doubt I could find elsewhere.
September 11th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Wiggy, please. A bit less of the old conspiracy theories, thanks.
September 11th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Luke - watch the doco I’ve linked to above and then talk to me.
Oops I forgot, christian hate fatcs don’t they? Well in that case, it’s probably best you don’t watch it then Luke.
WIGGY
September 11th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Sheesh, easy tiger. For your info, I’ve seen the doco. And I think it’s nothing that could be called conclusive.
And if you’re going to start abusing people because they don’t agree with you, caluminating religions and generally behaving like a pretty stupid, ignorant and pejorative fool, then I suggest you might noty get too many converts to your way of viewing ther world.
September 11th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Luke-meister… Sorry to have caused you offense mate but I was being tongue in cheek and using one of Lance’s famous lines (the “christians hate facts” line)
I have no issue with you disagreeing with me and no, I have no intention of gathering converts to my world view. What a sorry world that would be if everyone was like me!
Sorry again mate.
And yes I would agree that the doco is not conclusive per say (but really what actually is?) but it does present an awful lot of facts that go against the commonly held view that the WTC collapsed because of just an internal fire and the planes hitting them.
As is pointed out in “Loose change 2nd edition” the Empire state building was hit in 1930’s by a bomber military plane but it did not collapse.
No substantial plane wreckage was found at the pentagon site but apparently the “official” report is that 12 tons of commercial jet engine “vaporised” in the explosion. But yet they were able to identify 100+ dead bodies and they also found a passport? That does not add up.
Conclusive? No… Call for serious thought and questioning of the “popular opinion” re 9/11? Absolutely!
What are your thoughts on 9/11 Luke?
WIGGY
September 12th, 2006 at 9:18 am
tbokar…see here for an example of Sheridan’s cultural bias, if not racism:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18864013-25377,00.html
See here for a response that was pretty widely shared by people working in the South Pacific/on South Pacific issues:
http://alex.golub.name/log/2006/04/27/melanesia-is-not-a-huge-disaster/
September 12th, 2006 at 9:47 am
I watched Loose Change 2 last night on Foxtel - and I’ve got to say hat there are a whole lot of things that do not add up about 9/11 - not least of all that the engine bit that was left over after the rest was incinerated was not a rolls royce engine that boeing used on te sort of plaane that was claimed to hav crashed into the pentagon. Also a lot of people said one thing and then changed their story a few days later - government bullying?
One guy even lost his high level job after voicing his disbelief of the ‘official’ story.
I’m with Wiggy - too much evidnece not to think twice about the offical version - and if te officual version isn;t the truth (and I would say there is enough evidence to state it is not the truth) then what is the truth?
We will never know - but I reckon Elvis and Diana are complicit in this somehow!
September 12th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Wiggy
I have no doubt that the ‘official version’ has holes in it, and possibly even deliberate omissions and a touch of the old whitewash. That’s not the equal of a government conspiracy or some such, that’s more about political posturing between agencies, and about human beings scrambling to cover their bums as things come out to prove they were less than vigilant.
It’s a bit like the JFK shooting. The Warren Commission’s Report is very unlikely to be the true account of what happened that day in Dallas, but it’s a long way from that to saying that to alleging CIA/Mob/Russian/Castro/US military/KKK involvement.
September 11, and events like it, do have a tendency to produce the so-called ‘conspiracism complex’, common throughout history after a traumatic event, in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation. One news paper has referred to it this way,”…as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons”
In short, I think inconcistencies in the offical accounts of September 11 are due to human cowardice and incompetence rather than malice. Never balme maloveloence where stupitudity will suffice is my motto, and it’s probably applicable here until more evidence for a grand conspiracy emerges, if in fact it does.
I will say, though, that as John Kenneth Galbraith used to point out repeatedly, the notion ‘conventional wisdom’ is a ridiculous one, and widely accepted notions are always better questioned than accepted.
Oh, and apology accepted mate - the irony antennae must not have been working that day
September 12th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Bec, from the bias in your comments I doubt that de-construction of an opposing view to yours will give you the satisfaction of a discussion won. You obviously have a strong alternative view to mine on this, and for that you have my respect. With that in mind however, your questions come, not from an objective origin, but from a belief or premise.
Here though, are some short answers:
1. Your belief that Osama Bin Laden just wants to be left alone is both naïve and faulty. One of Osama’s key aims, in line with those stated by Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the destruction of Israel. Not exactly a passive mission statement, particularly bearing in mind Iran’s nuclear ambitions and their funding of Middle East based terrorists.
2. I’m not going to comment on the Bali question, for it is a red herring.
3. 3000 years of history, as given a major place in the bible, doesn’t suggest that we will ever be in for a peaceful ride. That will not come until the return of Christ. Man does not have the will or ability to do that on his own.
4. Re Greg Sheridan, when you state accusations of racism this says to me that objectivity has been abandoned. I read all articles (except for Phillip Adams – for that is just vitriol) with an awareness of the agenda. However, in this case (if not others) the article is balanced and objective. Well worth a read if you can get past the initial offence.
I doubt that we will find much common ground on this, except perhaps for point 3. Time and hindsight (if not history) might help to fill in the rest. tb
September 12th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Did anyone see Al Gore on Enough Rope last night?
Man! My guess is that the world would be a different place if he was in office…
September 12th, 2006 at 11:57 am
…yep, and seeing him on Enough Rope made you realise why he was never going to be in office.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Tbokar,
1. On that one I agree. I was actually discussing it with a (Muslim) friend yesterday. What bin Laden wants is to be left alone by what he calls “the West” (UK, Australia, US etc) - bin Laden would not see his agenda as conversion of the West, but reclamation of territories which rightly belong to Muslims. I take back the “wanting to be left alone” bit, but I’d still point out that a desire to (from his perspective) reclaim territories is very different to wanting to Islamisize (is that a word?) the entire world.
2. The Bali question was not intended to be a red herring, though I acknowledge it’s quite a different situation in that the attack didn’t happen on Australian soil, and it’s therefore far harder to make arguments for invasion. But I do find it frightening how easily the arguments for responding to 9/11 with the invasion of Afghanistan turned into arguments for the invasion of Iraq, although there was no obvious link between Iraq and 9/11…Doesn’t that worry you? Doesn’t it worry you that Bush and his colleagues have been planning this for decades?
3. I agree re: 3 - but that isn’t an argument in favour of invading Afghanistan or Iraq!
4. Read Sheridan’s pieces on the South Pacific, and you’ll see why I would accuse him of, at the very least, severe cultural bias, if not racism. I did not mean to be inflammatory when I accused him of racism - that’s simply how I read his pieces. I find them profoundly offensive to the people I know and care about (as do other Pacific specialists). Sheridan’s pieces on East Timor, indigenous Australia, the Solomons and Iraq have a consistent thread running through them - send more guns. This suggests to me that he has such a strong agenda that he cannot see the forest for the trees - while there are some similarities in each situation, there are also significant differences, and each therefore requires a different solution. For Sheridan to consistently propose the same solution is as silly as me writing academic pieces which always propose the same solution. That’s not objectivity, or creative thinking - it’s being so convicted by your agenda that you can’t actually stand back and analyse something. I actually think that the piece you posted on Iraq is one of his better pieces - but I’d never suggest that Sheridan was objective.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
my comment re the post (not the thread) is on my site.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Thanks Bec, I have enjoyed the “dialogue”, but must now try and get some work done. Interestingly, I suspect there would be much that we would concur on. I guess that George Bush’s 9/11 speech wouldn’t be one of them though.
PJ - yes, that would be a scary thought. Imagine too if Mark Latham was Prime Minister at the same time! Thank God for democracy.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
*cough*
I’m not sure PJ was suggesting it was a scary thought. Even Murdoch argrees with Gore - it’s a shame our own esteemed PM ignores the weight of scientific evidence. As Gore said this morning:
Australia in many ways is more at risk than any other nation. You have climate extremes now because of your latitude and your place in the middle of the ocean, an island continent and those extremes are predicted to get worse … You have, here in Sydney, in Brisbane, in Perth and elsewhere, shortages of drinking water. You have more fires, you have threats to the Great Barrier Reef, you have more Category Five cyclones and, most importantly of all, the soil moisture is being threatened as scientists have told us it would be. Australia is the driest of the inhabited continents and you’ve ingeniously created this magnificent civilisation in a place where the water is marginal and yet global warming threatens that. We can solve it but in order to avoid that harm we have to see it as a moral issue and discharge the responsibility we have to those who come after us.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
tbokar…think we are on opposite ends of the spectrum…
September 12th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
tbokar…”democracy” would probably have seen gore get in!!
September 12th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Al Gore has a new book coming out - “Fear: The Fulcrum of Earth in the Balance”. You’d better get out of Australia before you catch on fire - global warming will cause people down under to spontaneously combust. Make him a citizen and run him for king or something, we’ll give you Al Gore for a second round draft pick.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Forget the draft pick - just by us cold one and we’ll call it even.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
If Al thinks it’s bad there now, he should have been there a million years ago.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
akevin…a million years ago, australia was a lot more temperate. heck, even 100,000 years ago it was a lot more temperate. the ‘red centre’ was rainforest!
September 12th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
…if you want to talk fear mongering akevin, you need to talk Johnnie and George …absolute masters!
September 14th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Mostly because I can’t resist poking a bee hive with a short stick, but also because I happen to agree, here’s another totally impartial piece from Mr Sheridan. Hope you guys don’t choke on your cornflakes
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20407585-25377,00.html
September 14th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
And here’s a superb response.
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2006/09/14/bush-porn/
September 14th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
With respect, superb is not the right superlative, it was rather weak and totally predictable. I did find some humour in there however.
September 14th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
I know you’re stirring, tbokar, but have to admit it’s at least as good as what preceded it, pre-existent bias notwithstanding.