BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

7/7 vs 9/11- LOCKED

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Ganesh
22:35 / 12.07.05
From the moment people first started calling the London bombings '7/7', it was inevitable there'd be comparisons with the World Trade Centre tragedy. Toward the end of the 7th of July and in the days that followed, comparisons flowed thick and fast, from US and UK media.

Obviously, being the single biggest terror attack (in terms of fatalities) on British soil, since whenever, it was going to be held up against the single biggest terror attack (in terms of fatalities) on American soil. The pattern of attacks (several explosions, in the public/civilian sphere, happening more or less simultaneously) was also extremely similar to those on 9/11.

Even as the event was being reported by the British media, there was some evidence of contrast. I can't recall the specifics but, on the afternoon of the bombings, there were accounts of some sort of establishment involving "American students": the audio reports talked about them crying and saying they wanted to go home. Although no comment was made upon this, the article was topped and tailed with interviews with injured-yet-stoical Londoners vowing the attack would not cause them to change their habits "because then the terrorists would've won".

Subsequent to 7/7, the coverage on the UK side has tended to emphasise the 'Spirit of the Blitz' casualness with which the attack was treated, and speculate that this was because London has had a history of violence (Guy Fawkes, World War II, IRA bombings, etc.) or because doughty Londoners are a particularly hardy breed (not quite sure how they can divorce this from the history of bombings, etc.).

At least some of the coverage on the US side has tended to compare the London bombings with the World Trade Centre attack - tending to compare 7/7 wth 9/11, noting the difference in reaction on both sides of the Atlantic (both defiant, but Londoners blase while New Yorkers were shocked to the core) but frequently drawing the conclusion that the British will somehow "understand" or sympathise with US feeling subsequent to 9/11 ie. the War on Terrrrr, the Patriot Act, etc., etc., etc.

I'm not sure how I feel on the whole thing. On the one hand, I feel proud that Londoners are able, ostensibly, to shrug off a major terrorist attack and make a beeline for the pub (perhaps the presence of pub culture in the UK but not the US is relevant in the reactions to disaster of both nations?), and I'm irritated by attempts to make our bombings the "British 9/11" (not the same scale, not the same symbolic importance, not the same history of being attacked). On the other, I'm started to get scratchy with the resurgence of "plucky little Englander" cant.

I'm not sure where this is heading. I suppose I'd intended this thread to be a comparison of 7/7 and 9/11, and the reactions to both events, in terms of population and media. Do as thou wilt.
 
 
Smoothly
23:34 / 12.07.05
One of the things that struck me about 7/7 is that it tipped in terms of popular concern. I mean, practically everyone I know called me that day to check that I was okay. And I did the same. Barbelith did the same. Maybe this is significant. There have been a number of incidents in the years I've lived in London - from train crashes to nightclub shootings - that have killed people, people who could've been me. But my friends didn't call. I don't remember a Barbelith roll call after, say, the Potters Bar rail crash.
And I don't think that's just to do with the number of casualties. In purely statistical terms, the chance of being killed last Thursday can't have been that much higher than the Thursday before. And anyway, I don't think people do that calculation. I think the panic (and there was some panic) had much more to do with the type of event it was, and that's where the comparison with 9/11 comes up.

London might be (relatively) inured to terrorist attack after decades of IRA activity, but this was the New Terrorism - multiple, civilian targets; maximised casualties; no warning; no demands; apparently using suicide bombers. I think that scared people in the same way that 9/11 scared people. I'm probably being very inarticulate about this, but there was a sense that those who weren't injured (wherever they were) weren't so much spared as *missed*. It wasn't so much 'It could have been me' so much as 'It was meant to be me'. Does that make sense? Maybe that's how 9/11 felt.

I'm not sure if this had any effect on the way London 'recovered' although around me there did seem to be an attitude of 'Fuck you, you missed me', rather than 'Phew, that was close', and perhaps this translated into the pub-going stoicism that probably is closer to the spirit of the Blitz than anything we've experienced since WW2. However, I don't really buy this idea that Londoners were particularly nonchalant about 7/7, or that we were remarkably unhysterical. When has it ever been different? Ok, Diana. *Apart* from Diana, when has it ever been different?

It feels a bit gauche to compare 7/7 with 9/11 because the scale is so disproportionate, but something else I've noticed is that the emergency services haven't been lionised in the same way as they were in New York. It's true that they didn't suffer casualties the NYFD or NYPD did, but they stormed into the thick of it when bombs still appeared to be going off, and they're still down there now, in 60 degree heat, pulling bodies out of the rat-infested wreckage. And as Stoatie mentioned in another thread, I've not seen any more flags. I wonder why this is?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:41 / 12.07.05
As I've said elsewhere- The difference between the attack on the Twin Towers and the bombs on the tube is that it was possible to pull all of the uninjured people (and the injured) out of the underground system and treat them. If it had been a situation where people were visibly dying from the after effect and were cut off from the emergency services then the reaction probably would have been coloured by hysteria.

I think the difference between the two events specifically is a sense of helplessness. 9/11 was a horrific event not because it was a terrorist attack (horrifying but hardly conducive to real hysteria at a fundamental level) but because it caused people to be so endangered and cut off that they were physically throwing themselves from a tower onto the street below. Were this to happen in London I'm not sure the 'Blitz spirit' would hold out in quite the same way. People are capable of sustaining themselves in the face of attack but not in the face of others, possibly friends and relatives, throwing themselves to their deaths or being trapped in a tower with no life ahead of them.

I quite like the plucky little Englander thing not because I think it's realistic but because I think it's the way the hive mind of London, if not the country, copes with attack and it's a good mechanism. Primarily the thing to do in these situations is to remind yourself that they're an oddity, a good number of people writing about the situation probably use the tube everyday so I see the articles as those people individually trying to work themselves into that frame of mind and at the same time congratulating people for dealing with it in the same way as those people are trying to.

The US media I don't quite understand, it's a sign of how affected America was by the events of September 11th. They're still responding to the sight of citizens who went to work dying in that manner and the hysteria it caused in people. That hysteria reasonably spread all the way to London, with the evacuation of Canary Wharf and other buildings across the city so it's no surprise they're still processing it there. The comparison is really nothing to do with London and everything to do with the collapse of the towers and murder of so many people.

I don't like the naming of this event. It shouldn't be referred to as 7/7. It bears very little similarity to 9/11 and doesn't approach the scale of that attack. Primarily I dislike the fact that it mythologises the event and makes it something to mull over, to live again. London has suffered terrorism for decades, the 90s were a break from the bombs that London suffered during the 20th century, this isn't a moulding event for this city as 9/11 was for New York and I don't think there's any advantage in trying to make it one. If anything we're returning to the default of the 80s with consistent bomb alerts, evacuation and heightened vigilance with regard to suspect packages in railway stations across the country. Perhaps that's only my view because it was such a norm throughout my childhood? I understand that this was an attack on a larger scale than before but with advances in technology every terrorist attack is going to kill more people, the only thing that we can do is respond as the emergency services did and attempt to react in a fashion that matches the possible loss of life. As it is less than 100 people have died as a result of last Thursday's bombs and that is terrible but it's not 9/11.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:46 / 12.07.05
There have been a number of incidents in the years I've lived in London - from train crashes to nightclub shootings - that have killed people, people who could've been me. But my friends didn't call

But I think the significance was in the placement of the bombs. How many of your friends would have been on the Potters Bar train? How many of them were possibly travelling on one of the trains or on the bus on Thursday? Off the top of my head I can think of six people I know who could have been effected by the blasts and anyone else might have been at a meeting/interview in Central London that caused them to be on the Piccadilly line or walking through Tavistock Square, none who might have been on the Potters Bar train.
 
 
Smoothly
23:55 / 12.07.05
Yeah, true, but 'could have' is pretty broad in scope. People called me who knew that I was unlikely to be in any of the blast locations at that time. And like I said, I really don't think that people do that calculation. I think there was something else that made people want to contact people, although although I've only got dim ideas about what that might be.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
00:43 / 13.07.05
Perhaps the expectation that it was going to happen and then having to confirm that it finally did?

I did have a very short moment, not long enough to vocalise but a definite thought when I was told that the bombs had gone off that the person telling me was joking.
 
 
sleazenation
08:11 / 13.07.05
Well, at least with things occuring on the 7th of July we are all spared another transatlantic war on the correct order a date should be reported (which is, of course day, then month, then year )

It has also been noteworthy that American journalists in yesterdays press conferences with the police were both A) present, they actually deem an ongoing investigation into an incident in London to be so newsworth as to send more American reporters to cover it than, say, the one of London's many recent train crashes, and B) apparently keen to play up a racial/religious angle while the police and the BBC have been at great pains to talk of the bombers as being 'criminals' rather than commenting on race or purported religion...
 
 
DecayingInsect
09:37 / 13.07.05
sleazenation:

is it possible to imagine that the American journalists were correct in surmising that the bombings had a 'religious' angle rather than being the work of mere 'criminals'.

Or are you still in denial about this?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:52 / 13.07.05
I'm not sure what you mean, Decayinginsect. Do you mean that the bombings were religious in the same way that a bishop is religious - that is, that the explosion itself sparked some sort of brief sentience, during which the bombs made a series of posits and reached a series of conclusions that led them to believe in the existence of a higher force with certained defined aspects? Or do you mean that the killings were religious in the sense that, say the giving of the Eucharist is religious - that they were part of a religious ceremony, like mass or a Christian wedding?
 
 
Smoothly
10:00 / 13.07.05
It's likely that DecayingInsect means motivated (at least in part) by religious convictions, isn't it?
 
 
Char Aina
10:48 / 13.07.05
well, yeah.
only he has no way of knowing if that is true.
the bombers may have been individually motivated by anything at all, including but not restricted to religious fervour.

maybe one of them was there because he hates ken livingstone, for example.

what is certain is that they were criminals.
 
 
Ganesh
11:05 / 13.07.05
I don't think anyone's "in denial" here, DecayingInsect. I'd read Sleazenation's post more as a comment on the differences between US journalists and UK authorities in terms of the rapidity at which it's being assumed/concluded that religious divisions may have motivated the bombings. The US journalists may well be correct in (apparently) making that assumption, but 'talking up' the possibility at this point risks inflaming misguided anti-Muslim feeling (already, the BNP are merrily doing just that) on the basis of little or no firm evidence.

Besides, as the UK authorities have been at pains to make clear, even if the bombings turn out to be the work of an Al Qaeda type cell, it's debatable whether, given Al Qaeda's extremely perverse twisting of Islam for cynical ends, the motivation could be said to be "religious".
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
13:20 / 13.07.05
On the shallow end of this comparison (but not really) -

I have yet to see Brits wearing Union Jack lapel pins, a rise of has been and never was music stars capitalizing on it by releasing songs about putting boots up people's asses, or leaders making inflamator speeches about how this is a religious war that will end with Our God defeating Their God.

As an American, I'm impressed that it's being treated as a criminal act, and investigation is going on relentlessly, digging up facts and making sure the population knows them. Wish we had something like that here.

Of course, our media is also reporting it in a very strange way...with Fox News anchors saying the attacks will be good for bottom feeding investors, proof that France should have gotten the Olympics so that they will be attacked and other "sane" statements. Rush Limbaugh has gone so far as to say :

LIMBAUGH: That's, ah, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. Very powerful, excellent. And it was such a great contrast to what we're seeing in our own media this morning with the hand-wringing I was speaking about and the "Oh, woe is us" and "Oh, what did we do to cause this?" and "Oh, does this mean we're going to get hit?" and "Oh ..." It's like I said -- 40 people dead, 150 seriously wounded, 1,000 wounded, out of over 1 million people in that transit tube. It's not a successful terrorist attack, folks. They didn't succeed in doing anything, and that's just what you just heard the mayor say: "You don't scare us. You didn't accomplish diddly-squat. We've been through this before, much worse than this. And look at us -- we're in the 20th century, you're still back in the 14th century. Blah, blah, blah."
 
 
Tom Coates
13:29 / 13.07.05
21st Century, hopefully - unless that was an intriguing slip on his part which I'm quite prepared to agree with?
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
13:48 / 13.07.05
Or, just Limbaugh not getting a fact right again.

I was also really taken by the difference in the difference between the media in England and the US. In the US, all of the cable news channels had some variation of an "ATTACKED!" graphic, and anchors would start stories with "Is the US next?!?" and filled time with analysts explaining what they thought had happened and what it all meant, while the BBC broadcast official statements, gave out facts, and spoke to officials about the process of sorting it all out.
 
 
sleazenation
14:15 / 13.07.05
As others have pointed out, I was referring to the tack that the American Journalists took in the press conference I referred to.

To my mind, they leaped to a quite dangerous the amount of over-simplified conclusions leaving out important layers of complexity.

Britian is a modern multi-religious multi-racial and multi-ethnic country, much like Canada, the USA and, indeed, a wide range of other countries. The diversity of these countries is a great part of their strength, as is their unity.

If a wedge is driven between a particular religious, cultural or ethnic community and the rest of the British population (or the rest of the Canadian or the rest of the United States's population) then the terrorists will have succeeded. Britain, and those other countries would be divided against themselves, weak and broken.

Further, it is important to remember that terrorism cannot be equated with any particular religion, ethicity or race. While particular religious, ethnic, or racial groups might be appear to have a disproportionately large number of people identified as being responsible for terrorist attacks amongst them, there remains large numbers amongst those communities who are completely and utterly innocent of any involvement in any terrorist acts. And those innocent people greatly outnumber the terrorists. Just because many birds can fly, it does not follow that all creatures that fly are birds.

Further still, just because someone claims a belief system, it does not necessarily follow that it will guide their actions. Christians can do some very unChristian things at times, as can purported members of other religions.

There are far more layers of complexity to the people and events surrounding the bombings of the 7th of July, such as the problem of referring to Al Qaeda as 'an organization', but that is probably too much complexity to go into on this post. Suffice to say that complexity is important and helpful when understanding the events of the world around us. Oversimplification and premature conclusions can prove dangerous.
 
 
sleazenation
14:20 / 13.07.05
I rather suspect if Rush knew much about Ken Livingstone's past he would be heaping praise upon him so lavishly as he appears to be doing in the above quote...
 
 
DecayingInsect
14:44 / 13.07.05
ganesh: "I don't think anyone's "in denial" here"

toksik: "maybe one of them was there because he hates ken livingstone, for example"

nuff said
 
 
Char Aina
14:53 / 13.07.05
oh for god's sake.
i was demonstrating that we cannot know their intentions, and that while the overall group ethos MAY have been muslim, the individual protagonists may have had very different ideas about why dying for a cause was necessary.

i dont really think that they had issues with livingstone. dont be a berk.

in denial?
about what?
the possibility that they are islamic fundamentalists with direct links to osama bin lost-for-ages?
not at all.
i would just like to wait until it is proved, rather than add to the ramping up of the terror-noia.

shit, it was all over the media that the oklahoma bombing was by muslims, remember?
and then all felt silly and tried to brush under the carpet their knee jerk reaction when the truth was revealed.

open mind, dude, open mind.
 
 
Ganesh
15:01 / 13.07.05
Well, no, not "nuff said" at all. Have you actually read Sleaze's most recent post, DecayingInsect? The fact that those investigating the bombings have not jumped to any particular conclusion does not mean that they, or we, are "in denial" - merely keeping an open mind until more factual evidence materialises.
 
 
DecayingInsect
15:31 / 13.07.05
toksic: "don't be a berk"

just quoting you.

4 suicide bombers and explosives found in Leeds and Luton, authorities appeal for calm etc

Who is "ramping up the terror-noia"?

And are you saying we cannot at this stage form a plausible idea of the bombers intentions? If so why not?

ganesh: yes I had read sleazenation's most recent post and I agree with some of his points.

Oversimplification and premature conclusions are indeed dangerous.

So is ignoring the completely obvious.
 
 
sleazenation
15:41 / 13.07.05
Decaying Insect - you indicate you have read and, indeed, agree with some points raised.

Could you detail which ones you agreed with and which ones you did not and have a stab at explaining the reasoning underlying these points of agreement and difference? And while you are at it, could you give a description of what it is you think is "completely obvious"?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:55 / 13.07.05
I think Decayinginsect is arguing that it is completely obvious that the people who planted/were the bombs were muslims (which is not _completely_ obvious, depending on your definition), and presumably by extension that everybody involved in the process leading up to the bombings was a muslim (which is less obvious again). If we assume this to be true in the interests of saving time, I'm not sure where it takes us. Islam isn't the Exclusive Brethren, after all; as far as I know there are muslims all over the shop, and trying to arrest all of them is going to be an absolute pisser.
 
 
DecayingInsect
16:31 / 13.07.05
sleazenation:

"Britain is a modern multi-religious multi-racial and multi-ethnic country, much like Canada, the USA and, indeed, a wide range of other countries"

statement of fact. Agreed

"The diversity of these countries is a great part of their strength, as is their unity".

Agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately others don't.

"If a wedge is driven between a particular religious, cultural or ethnic community and the rest of the British population..."

Common sense. Completely Agree

"Further, it is important to remember that terrorism cannot be equated with any particular religion, ethicity or race"

Factual. Agree. But is indiscriminate violence by a minority of fanatics more a feature of some religions than others?

"While particular religious, ethnic, or racial groups might be appear to have a disproportionately large number of people identified as being responsible for terrorist attacks amongst them..."

Statement of fact. Agreed.

"Christians can do some very unChristian things at times, as can purported members of other religions"

True, but what is the function of the word "purported" in that sentence? Don't bother quoting a dictionary back at me.

"There are far more layers of complexity to the people and events surrounding the bombings of the 7th of July, such as the problem of referring to Al Qaeda as 'an organization', but that is probably too much complexity to go into on this post"

So how does this 'complexity' make it problematic to believe that there is an islamist organization, al Qaeda, that has carried out over 30 terrorist attacks in at least 14 different nations since 1998?

Or do you have a conspiracy theory for us?

"Suffice to say that complexity is important and helpful when understanding the events of the world around us"

How does that suffice?
 
 
Ganesh
16:46 / 13.07.05
The bombings happened in a pattern characteristic of previous Al Qaeda attacks ie. simultaneously, without warning, timed to cause maximum death/disruption to civilians. It's thought that the bombs themselves were operated manually ie. human suicide bombers rather than mechanical timers.

Beyond this, what's "completely obvious"?
 
 
DecayingInsect
16:59 / 13.07.05
ganesh "what's "completely obvious"?"

that the bombings were carried out by fanatics with an islamist agenda
 
 
Ganesh
17:19 / 13.07.05
No, I mean, can you unpack that? Can you demonstrate why that's obvious? In my last post I've summarised the information of which I'm aware, which suggests that this attack had some features in common with previous Al Qaeda attacks. Has more information come to light in order to make it "completely obvious"?

Show your working, please.
 
 
DecayingInsect
17:51 / 13.07.05
ganesh: "Show your working, please"


here are some pointers for you:

the bombers used military-grade explosives of a type known to be purchased by al Qaeda in the Balkans

one of the bombers had previously visited Afghanistan

the operation was a carefully-planned suicide attack

the bombers appear to be known to french intelligence


That is enough to make it completely obvious to me that they were a UK cell of al Qaeda and that the attack was carried out in the name of that organisation's brand of militant islam

I have not heard a single credible argument to the contrary
 
 
Ganesh
18:03 / 13.07.05
Okay, this is all new info to me, presumably revealed in the last 24-48 hours; I'm Googling to find out more as we speak. I'd still argue that, while links to the Al Qaeda movement appear, in the light of this, highly likely, I'd be wary of saying it's "completely obvious", and commend the UK authorities on their caution in making such an equivocal statement just yet.
 
 
m
18:53 / 13.07.05
It's interesting to compare the US media's coverage of last year's bombing in Madrid with the recent ones in London. Despite both having similar scenarios with similar numbers of casualties, the London bombings were immediately tied to 9/11 and treated with a level of panicky sympathy, whereas the Madrid bombings were only ever handled with clinical journalistic detachment. The day after the Madrid bombing, the media focused on how the bombing was going to effect the Spanish elections and Spain's involvement in the "War on Tehr", and there was never that "are we next?" subtext that we've been getting for the last week.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:50 / 13.07.05
So, Decayinginsect, what's the plan? Arrest all muslims, or just the ones with British passports who have no previous criminal record and live in Yorkshire? What's our next step?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:07 / 13.07.05
Um... is this the worst terrorist attack in Britain? I mean, the best part of 300 people were killed on Flight 103. Okay, so it happened above the ground, but surely airspace is as good as "soil"?
 
 
Ganesh
21:49 / 13.07.05
The "worst terror attack on British soil" is how I've heard it described - so yes, the "soil" bit would be relevant there.
 
 
w1rebaby
22:49 / 13.07.05
The problem with DecayingInsect is that he's not actually saying anything, just repeating things that he's heard on various warblogs and hoping that everyone will just, y'know, see the truth therein. I could speculate on what I think the truth that he's hoping we'll apprehend might be, but I wouldn't want to be premature.

So go on. Say something. Put forward an argument. I know you want to.
 
 
sleazenation
23:17 / 13.07.05
Decaying Insect

Thanks for replying. It’s good to see that we actually seem to have a great deal of common ground here.

With regards to the uses of ‘purported’ in that paragraph containing

Just because someone claims a belief system, it does not necessarily follow that it will guide their actions. Christians can do some very unChristian things at times, as can purported members of other religions


– I should probably have added the word purportedly into the section about the unChristian behaviour of some Christians, so that it read:

Just because someone claims a belief system, it does not necessarily follow that it will guide their actions. People who purport to be Christians can do some very unChristian things at times, as can purported members of other religions

The point I was trying to make wasn’t just that people who profess a belief sometimes fail to act in a way that is consistent with that belief, more that some people who profess a belief sometimes act in a way that is so far outside of that belief system as to make a mockery of their own claims of belief.

In short, people that are loosely termed ‘members of Al-Qaeda’ in no way represent mainstream Islam in any meaningful way. Or as Tony Blair put it, there is a group of people with a "poisonous and perverted misinterpretation of the religion of Islam" link.




Onto Al-Qaeda. It is probably also worth pointing out at this time the complexities of referring to Al Qaeda as 'an organization'. It appears to be less of an organization than an idea. A flag of convenience, coveted by some and revelled by others. Certainly, it has no rigorous hierarchical structure. This BBC article probably explains the complexities behind the loose term Al-Qaeda better than I ever could.

So, yes. I think we can agree that there is an extremely loosely connected group of people, sometimes operating under the name/idea of Al-Qaeda, sometimes having that term applied to them by the media, for ease of reference to a group that is pretty amorphous. We can also agree that over 30 terrorist attacks in at least 14 different nations since 1998 have been carried out by a group variously described as being Al-Qaeda in the media. I think it is highly problematic to describe this loose and difficult to define group termed by the press as Al-Qaeda as ‘Islamist’ since that endorses the extremist terrorists’ ‘perverted misinterpretation of the religion of Islam’ unfairly associating the actions of those extremists with the vast majority of Muslims who see no need to blow people up in the name of their religion. Further, I think it is to over-stretches the facts to a dangerous and unrepresentative degree to claim unproblematically that it is a single unified ‘islamist organization, al Qaeda, that has carried out over 30 terrorist attacks in at least 14 different nations since 1998’.

Not a conspiracy theory in sight, as far as I can tell…
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply