What was different?

[rgraham666]

I've been following the recent political threads, as I always do. All of them seem to focus on events caused by 9/11.

I'm remembering though, the major act of terrorism in the U.S. before that. The day the Alfred P. Murragh building went up. I'm sure you remember that. Especially that heartbreaking picture of the fireman with the tiny body.

So why didn't that act engnder the same responses that 9/11 did? Why no sudden and complete polarisation of the country. Why no calls to suspend habeus corpus and due process? Why so few attempts to grab the event for political purposes?

What, exactly, was different?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I've been following the recent political threads, as I always do. All of them seem to focus on events caused by 9/11.

I'm remembering though, the major act of terrorism in the U.S. before that. The day the Alfred P. Murragh building went up. I'm sure you remember that. Especially that heartbreaking picture of the fireman with the tiny body.

So why didn't that act engnder the same responses that 9/11 did? Why no sudden and complete polarisation of the country. Why no calls to suspend habeus corpus and due process? Why so few attempts to grab the event for political purposes?

What, exactly, was different?

9/11 was the latest and most extreme act of an international terrorist organization. There had been responses to their depredations before, although not as extreme. This one has been described as the two by four across the mule's forehead.

The OC bombing was the work of a small bunch of local crackpots. The fact that one of their number had committed such a heinous act was enough to bring about the ostracism of the crackpots. The rest of them are still active and are being observed but they generally stay within the law.

You may remember that the OC bombing was a response to an extreme government action rxactly one year earlier when they attact a religious cult in Waco TX and killed about 85 men, women and children. I have no empathy with the OC bombers but I also have none with the government action a year older.

 

[Songcatcher]

Soggy twat in the White House?

 

[minsue]

What, exactly, was different?

That's easy, Rob. While many tried to instantly blame terrorists from the Middle East, the bombing was done by an American. Us versus Them doesn't work so well when Them is Us.

 

[rgraham666]

Them is always Us, min.

 

[minsue]

Them is always Us, min.

I know that and you know that, but They don't know that. (I have to laugh or I'll cry)

 

[rgraham666]

But Box, Al Qaida isn't much more than a bunch of crackpots. Maybe a couple of orders of magnitude bigger but hardly huge.

So why such an extreme reaction?

 

[Boxlicker101]

But Box, Al Qaida isn't much more than a bunch of crackpots. Maybe a couple of orders of magnitude bigger but hardly huge.

So why such an extreme reaction?

They are a much, much larger bunch of crackpots, completely lacking in honor and decency, much better armed and bankrolled, and their sole mission is to kill anybody who is not them. Furthermore, they are often able to hide or receive refuge in foreign countries such as Afganistan, and now Iraq. You can't really compare the two groups, except to the degree that you can compare the Second Grade Rhythm Band and the New York Philharmonic. There are some similarities but the magnitude is vastly different.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

In my opinion, the difference is that the OC bombing was an act of domestic terrorism. The perpatrators were quickly brought to heel, exposed, tried and punished. There was some closure and there was no external threat engendered.

The WC bombers were not caught, have not been tried or punished. There isn't any closure. And they represent an external threat.

As to exploiting it for political gain, the OC bombings left vry little you could exploit. The WTC bombings left plenty and politicians took advantage.

 

[McKenna]

I was trying to think of a response to this that was original or at least covered points not already covered by Box, Min, and Colly, but as usual, higher interlects prevail.

I can only add my feeling on it, re: How I reacted to it personally.

I look at it like this: Within a family structure siblings get into arguments. Mom and dad take care of the arguments, punish who needs punished, and go on about their daily lives. But when the threat comes from outside the family, like a neighbor bully roughing up one of the kids, the whole family groups together behind the kid for support. It's a fierce kind of protectiveness, and Mom and Dad want to make heads roll for whoever is tormenting their kid.

It's a loose point, and perhaps I've not expressed it acurately, but that's the closest I can come.

I have no idea why the WTC bombings were used for political gain over the OC bombings. I'm open to suggestions on that one.

 

[R. Richard]

I've been following the recent political threads, as I always do. All of them seem to focus on events caused by 9/11.

I'm remembering though, the major act of terrorism in the U.S. before that. The day the Alfred P. Murragh building went up. I'm sure you remember that. Especially that heartbreaking picture of the fireman with the tiny body.

So why didn't that act engnder the same responses that 9/11 did? Why no sudden and complete polarisation of the country. Why no calls to suspend habeus corpus and due process? Why so few attempts to grab the event for political purposes?

What, exactly, was different?

Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Alfred P. Murragh Building in Oklahoma City resulted in the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and Congress responded to the attacks of September 11, 2001 with the USA PATRIOT Act in under two months. These attacks reflected a lack of security, and correspondingly, these new laws reflected a sacrifice of liberty.

There is a formal name for the doctrine these two laws are built on; inter arma silent leges, or ``in war, the law is silent''. If the threat to security is grave, civil rights can be, and usually are, curtailed as needed. Put another way, rights are not absolute; as Justice Robert Jackson put it in Terminello v. Chicago, the Bill of Rights is not a ``suicide pact''.

I believe the above answers at least the basis of your questions.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That's easy, Rob. While many tried to instantly blame terrorists from the Middle East, the bombing was done by an American. Us versus Them doesn't work so well when Them is Us.

The "Us" people who performed the Oklahoma City bombing have been executed (McVeigh) and incarcerated (Nichols), while those who orchestrated the September 11th attacks, aside from those who chose to die in them, are still at large or in continuing legal process. I don't see much pro-"us" bias there.

Some people did immediately leap to the assumption that Middle Eastern terrorists might have been behind the Oklahoma bombing. However, I suspect that that had less to do with xenophobia than with the fact that the last notable bombing of a US building was in fact carried out by Middle Eastern terrorists - the first bombing of the World Trade Center, which incidentally was credited with saving many lives in the second bombing due to the evacuation and emergency plans developed in its aftermath. I don't think it's a sign of rampant racist isolationism to guess that the people who blew up your last building might be the ones who blew up the most recent one.

Oh, and I agree with Box. The difference in reaction to the Oklahoma City bombing was that we could identify who did it, there were only two main players, and when we had them that pretty much looked like the end of the threat. Al Quaida is a completely different picture - much more numerous, much better bankrolled, located all over the world, and constantly and actively recruiting. That, and they managed to kill 3,000 people, destroy two of the world's tallest buildings and severely damage the Pentagon, and very nearly destroy the White House, in the process killing everyone on board four commercial airliners, all in a single morning. While meaning absolutely no disrespect to the victims, survivors, and families of the Oklahoma tragedy, and without implying that grief and suffering have a rating scale, the September 11th attacks had an impact that nothing in the States' living memory could compare to, with the possible exception of Pearl Harbor.

Shanglan

 

[sophia jane]

I've got nothing to add about the why's. I agree with what's been said- it's an "us" vs "them" thing. And politically, there wasn't a whole lot to be gained from OKC.

But I do want to say this: I lived in OKC then; miles away, the building where I lived shook and we heard the "boom." I remember driving downtown to see if we could help and being told that no one needed us (seriously! there were that many volunteers). For me it's sad that 9-11 has caused people to forget what happened in OKC. The loss of life there shouldn't be less important just because it's not a political hot topic.

SJ

 

[Weird Harold]

What, exactly, was different?

One distinction nobody has raised yet is one happened on Live TV over several hours, the other was over in a microsecond with only the static image of the aftermath for the news coverage to show.

Nobody watched anyone die in OKC on live TV. There were no desperate people shown leaping to their deaths or a second airplane doubling the horror as the nation and world watched live.

All we saw of OKC was a shattered building that looked much the same as one damaged by an earthquake or hurricane. With the WTC, we watched the second attack and we watched the buildings collapse on the rescuers.

Our children woke up on 9/11/2001 and turned on their morning cartoons and got 2000+ people dying on live TV instead of care bears or power rangers.

It is much easier to get outraged over something you actually see happen live than it is over something that is over before you hear about it and hard to visually distinguish from a natural disaster.

Most of the other reasons given are valid too, but I think it was the live coverage that made the reaction so much more emotional.

 

[minsue]

Very good point, WH. Not only for the horror of watching it unfold live, but then having the images broadcast on a loop for days from every possible angle, every camera that captured it.

As for the children turning on the tv to see their cartoons, I recall well trying to keep the stricken look off my face when my niece, who at six now was far too young then to understand what she'd seen, excitedly told me how she saw the buildings fall down over and over on tv.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I remember reading someone's tale of going to pick up their neighbour's child as well as their own from school and take them to their house for a sleepover. The neighbour had just learned that her husband was killed in the attacks and that her child would never see him again. The author recalled driving up to the school and seeing large signs outside for the parents: "We have not told the children."

 

[Belegon]

I remember my son seeing construction at the San Jose airport and asking if the plane had broken that building too...

We were on one of the first Southwest flights out of San Diego on Friday, Sept 14th, the first day flights resumed. We had a wedding to go to in San Jose, and I am stubborn. First and last time I have ever heard a rousing ovation from the passengers for a plane taking off. I was very, very proud of my fellow passengers and our flight crew that day.

 

[gauchecritic]

Don't want to poop the party and invoke amicus but: Oil?

 

[TheEarl]

Because it was the closest thing America has ever had to a war on its own land since the Civil War ended. In Britain we've dealt with the Blitz and with atrocities by the IRA, in Germany they have bomb damage, Russia has the scorched earth policy, France has the German invasion, Spain has ETA, Japan has Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

America was one of few 'big' nations to completely escape any kind on war on its own turf in the last century. The OKC was small enough to be considered a crime by people - you knew who the crackpots were, you'd got them and you knew that they weren't going to repeat it. It didn't affect the general public's opinion of the mass-murdering 'freedom fighters' in Ireland or make you bored of the news of bombs of ETA in Spain.

September 11th was something that you could not control. It was cold, calculating and committed by men who had no other wish than to kill any civilian they could lay their hands on. This wasn't your soldiers in the newspaper. The next dead person could be you. And these guys couldn't be caught, they couldn't be stopped and you didn't know where or when they were going to strike next.

Politicians made hay whilst the fear shone, but I think a decent percentage were scared themselves. They didn't know when, or where, or how they could be attacked and they wanted to lash out and to try to protectthemselves, somehow.

The Earl

 

[Liar]

It was on TV.

Seriously.

Thosands of people were murdered right in the kitchens and living rooms of the rest of us. You sat there, stirring your soggy cereal on chock induced auto pilot while gawking in horror at people jumping out of a burning skyscraper. They were real people, and in the same instant you saw them hit the ground, they died.

Live feed is a powerful weapon, and it made it personal for every individual in the whole damn country this time. Most people had the protection of an edited newscast between themselves and earlier terrorist deeds.

#L

 

[dr_mabeuse]

That's a fascinating question, Rob.

I've often wondered what our repsonse to 9/11 would have been had it been the act of an American lunatic. Would we have started executing lunatics? Would we start pouring money into mental health programs? Make lunatics register with the police?

Because 9/11 was the act of lunatics. Only they weren't American lunatics. They were "others".

Americans can't stand the thought that anyone hates them. We really can't. It just shocks and horrifies us, because we're so certain of our own decency and good intentions. You still see people here defending failed American policies of the last 100 years with a tenacity you don't see in people from other countries when their own histories are dredged up. A lot of the outrage over 9/11 came down to this: how dare they do this to us?! We're the good guys!

We get hurt, we get offended, and we lash out.

I also think that, under all the hurt and outrage, there's a very deep fear that the terrorists are plugged into something more vital than what we're plugged into. You can call them cowards, but they gave their lives for what they believed in, as sick as it was. You can't be any braver than that. That's pretty impressive.

McVeigh sat outside and set his bomb off then drove away. The 9/11 terrorists were the bomb. It's like the Buddhist students who would set themselves on fire to protest policies in Viet Nam. You might think they're wrong, but you've got to admire that kind of dedication, and it's scary.

9/11 scared the shit out of us and we're still scared, no matter what our leaders say.

 

[rgraham666]

Thanks people. Interesting thoughts.

I hadn't considered live TV and its effect. Mostly because I never watch TV.

But I can recognise the fact that it made what had been unreal, real.

My own view is a bit different. I was only saddened by 9/11, not shocked. It wasn't a surprise. We here in North America generally tended to think of ourselves as apart from the rest of the world, beyond reality's reach. Such an attitude almost ensures such an act as 9/11 will happen.

And I was less sad than you might think. Twenty four hours after the Towers went down twice as many people died in all the piddling little wars going on all over this planet as died in New York. And that's been going on every day since the end of WWII, and doesn't include incidents like Rwanda and Cambodia.

But I'm a heretic, and insane. My perspective is going to be different.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Because it was the closest thing America has ever had to a war on its own land since the Civil War ended. In Britain we've dealt with the Blitz and with atrocities by the IRA, in Germany they have bomb damage, Russia has the scorched earth policy, France has the German invasion, Spain has ETA, Japan has Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

America was one of few 'big' nations to completely escape any kind on war on its own turf in the last century. The OKC was small enough to be considered a crime by people - you knew who the crackpots were, you'd got them and you knew that they weren't going to repeat it. It didn't affect the general public's opinion of the mass-murdering 'freedom fighters' in Ireland or make you bored of the news of bombs of ETA in Spain.

September 11th was something that you could not control. It was cold, calculating and committed by men who had no other wish than to kill any civilian they could lay their hands on. This wasn't your soldiers in the newspaper. The next dead person could be you. And these guys couldn't be caught, they couldn't be stopped and you didn't know where or when they were going to strike next.

Politicians made hay whilst the fear shone, but I think a decent percentage were scared themselves. They didn't know when, or where, or how they could be attacked and they wanted to lash out and to try to protectthemselves, somehow.

The Earl

You know, I've heard this argument recently from a friend - that September 11th affected us more strongly because of a lack of other attacks and disasters in our country. (Setting aside, evidently, the OK City bombing, the first Trade Center attack, and Pearl Harbor, as well as the assassination of one president and the near-assassination of another). Admittedly - and I apologize, Earl, if you catch any leakover from this - she was less tactful and spoke airily of "getting over it" with a rather strong implication that we were being babies about it.

Setting aside WWII, however - as something that for most people on this board, and for the majority of the population during September 11th was not a living memory - I query the comparison. I may be wrong, but I rather think that if the IRA had managed, in a single day, to completely level Canary Wharf with over 2,000 people inside, crash a plane into the Houses of Parliament with 150 casualities, and plummet another jetliner into the Thames while attempting to smash it into Buckingham Palace, the British reaction might have been rather similar to our own.

Shanglan

 

[gauchecritic]

I may be wrong, but I rather think that if the IRA had managed, in a single day, to completely level Canary Wharf with over 2,000 people inside, crash a plane into the Houses of Parliament with 150 casualities, and plummet another jetliner into the Thames while attempting to smash it into Buckingham Palace, the British reaction might have been rather similar to our own.

Shanglan

Actually I think you're wrong there horsey. It's my understanding that after 2000 odd years of one invasion after another, conquering the known world and inventing everything in sight I honestly see the British people (as a whole) apart possibly from India, as the most tolerant culture in the world being as how we've absorbed so many of them over the years.

Shock and outrage yes, anger and hatred yes but above all that a feeling of 'this can be mended', 'this can be borne', what need have we of more enemies when we have enough to deal with without adding external fear? I really believe this

It's not L'asseiz fair (that's for governments) it's not cowardice, (as we've proved time and again) it's not even a feeling of 'we'll get by' or 'it'll be rate' (all right) it's the knowledge that things have to carry on, bread has to be earned, children have to be raised, that there are better ways to confront violence than with violence.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't doubt that that would have been some people's reaction, Gauche - as indeed, as I think you can see from the boards, that was some people's reaction over here. I doubt, however, that this would have been everyone's reaction, or that it would have been your government's reaction. It hasn't, in fact, historically been their reaction to the IRA or to cases like the Falklands, and it hasn't even been the reaction of, say, the readership of the Sun (yes, a low common denominator, but to judge by readership a common denominator no less) to things like immigration and traveller communities. While understanding that peaceful and tolerant people exist in all cultures, they have a way of being drowned out in the wake of violent attacks.

Tolerance. Tricky. It's hard for me to weigh it evenly. England is the only place where I've ever been racially insulted to my face, although the person doing it did not realize that he was. I tend to agree with the (English) SO; the cities tend to have more respect for diversity and a more positive attitude toward racial tolerance, both in England and in the States. Rural, less ethnically diverse areas tend to be a bit more cloistered. Neither of us has seen much difference between the States and England, with the possible exception of me needing to remind the SO that in the states, the words "coloured" or "chinky" to mean a Chinese food restaraunt are likely to get your lights punched out.

Shanglan