Whether you like it or not, multiculturalism is here to stay. I don’t use the word in the political sense, of multiculturalism as an ideology, a doctrine or a social vision. I use it as a general descriptive term, in the absence of any other, to reflect the reality of life in the suburbs of Australia, where for every Tom, Dick and Harry there’s a Mustafa, a Tran and a Nkosana just around the corner.

A pair of military boots, a bottle of whiskey and a memorial candle at a 9-11 memorial across the street from Ground Zero. Picture: AP

In the ten years since September 11, 2001, it’s the Mustafas who have been the source of the greatest unease in countries such as ours which have been built on successive patterns of immigration.

Those us who can’t comprehend the concept of flying a plane into a building to make a political point have quite understandably rounded our contempt on those who seek to excuse or explain such murderous conduct.

From New York to Bali, to Madrid and London, Baghdad and Mumbai, there’s been an ever-increasing body count as the forces of radical Islam deliberately seek out civilians as their targets of preference in a screwy theological war.

This is the key moral difference between western values and the values of radical Islam. It is a point worth making on this 10th anniversary weekend.

When the west wages war it does so with the general conviction that civilians should not be targeted. It’s the reason that place names such as My Lai, Hiroshima and Dresden resonate to this day, and still inspire debate among people in the west. It’s also the reason we have systems within our military whereby soldiers can be investigated, court-marshalled and jailed when accused of wrongdoing against civilian populations.

Contrast this with the grim procession of images this past decade of aid workers being beheaded on You Tube video, or fanatics in the Middle East celebrating as two buildings are felled, sending Colombian chefs, Mexican cleaners, recently-married American stockbrokers and tourists from Australia, Japan and France crashing to earth. The perpetrators of these obscenities are not investigated for incompetence, as there was nothing accidental about their actions. Nor are they denounced as murderers. They are feted as heroes, deified in death.

When Osama bin Laden was captured and killed there were some voices in Australia criticising the scenes of joy on the streets of New York. Their claim that the celebrations in Manhattan were no different from the euphoria on the streets of Palestine on September 11, 2001, was a flawed analysis which failed to grasp the moral dimensions of the war against terrorism. In Palestine in 2001 we saw people celebrating because more than 3000 civilians had been killed. In New York this year we saw people celebrating because the man who masterminded the demise of more than 3000 civilians had finally been taken out of circulation. Maybe a trial would have been nice but, hey, it couldn’t have happened to a nicer bloke.

In a country such as Australia, we know that there are people among us who think that September 11 was either explicable, defensible, or a wholly good thing. We know this because there are bookshops which sell videos celebrating the work of hijacker Mohammad Atta and his cohorts. We know this because the authorities have arrested and convicted a couple of dozen people who were planning a similar brand of violence on our soil. The thing they all share is a common belief in their radical and irrational brand of Islam.

The question is – how many of them are there? Are they representative of their broader communities? Or are they just extremists in the strict sense of the word; that is, totally out of step with the mainstream of their community and the broader community? I’d argue strongly that they fall into the latter category.

The invocation “never forget” is being used across the western media this weekend as a tagline for the coverage of the 10th anniversary. It’s a fairly obvious tag - as if we ever would forget anyway – and it’s also one which can take us into the realm of the counter-productive.

This is because it goes beyond suggesting that we should never forget what we witnessed that day, and urges us never to forget how we felt that day, to maintain the rage.

Personally, I’d be happy if I never again felt the same way as I did on September 11, 2001. I felt such a level of hatred for the perpetrators that I could feel it physically, and such a generalised contempt for Islam and anyone who would seek to explain or rationalise what motivated such conduct, that I was enthusiastically placing myself into the camp which held that the bastards who did it should be bombed back to the stone age. In its aftermath, if I found myself watching one of those SBS audience debates, where a woman in a burqa or a guy with a white gown and a bushy under-beard would talk about the abuse they were copping on the street, I would find myself sneering at the television as if to say, well that’s sad, isn’t it, but it’s probably preferable to being hit with a 747 while you’re checking your emails of a morning.

They’re understandable emotions but they’re also useless ones which will make you a less pleasant member of society, and may also give you an ulcer.

If we are going to function as a society and live without a barely sublimated sense of vengeance, it is much more productive to treat September 11 as a time to reflect, rather than reprise the emotion we all felt on that day. 

September 11 was the most dramatic marketing campaign imaginable for the twisted cause of terrorism. The heartening thing in a multicultural country such as ours is how few people have responded to its call. The things which have attracted refugees and immigrants to Australia from dysfunctional Muslim nations – personal safety, job and education opportunities, the ability to earn money, religious tolerance, the absence of sectarian violence – are far more galvanising than the apocalyptic nonsense peddled by those who would destroy civilisation. We should remember that, as we also remember September 11.

Most commented

48 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • John says:

      11:17am | 11/09/11

      “ever-increasing body count as the forces of radical Islam deliberately seek out civilians as their targets of preference in a screwy theological war.”

      more correct reality is “ever-increasing body count as the forces of radical western intelligence agency’s who create fictional enemy’s then seek out western civilians as their targets in order to manipulate the mass’s into wars with fictional enemy’s.” Evidence is all over 9/11, 7/7 and London bombings. Don’t believe in everything you hear, there are governments and intelligence agency’s out there willing to sacrifice western civilians for their agenda. This is dark world, not a moral one.

    • nihonin says:

      11:33am | 11/09/11

      John, ‘Don’t believe in everything you hear’ maybe you should take heed of your own advice as well.  Also what about showing a bit of respect for the dead, no matter which theory you follow.  Leave your CONspiracy theories for some other time.

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      11:34am | 11/09/11

      ” fictional enemy’s” surely you mean “enemies”.

      I believe your last sentence, the rest is dogmatic propaganda.

      You do not have to believe everything you hear, but facts are facts.

      Seek the truth, don’t sprout secondhand dogma.

    • VVS says:

      11:40am | 11/09/11

      You sound like a load of fun sitting there in your tin foil hat… smile

    • Richard M says:

      11:40am | 11/09/11

      We need to simply ignore moronic mental defectives like John.  Otherwise, we can spend to much mental and emotional energy seeking torefute his disgusting nonsense.  The fact is that outlandish conspiracy theories are almost impossible to refute because of their very outlandishness and disconnection from reality.
      As for Penbo’s article, there is much that is well put - unlike the worrying piece by Waheed Aly in today’s Sunday Herald.  His thesis seems to be that we should basically have ignored actions like 9/11 and the London bombings, and sought to appease the terrorists by dealing with Muslim grievances (given that many of these are imagined, this might be a little difficult).  Also, in some way, it really is all our own fault because we have not dealt with Muslims in a kindly enough fashion, eg by expecting them to condemn terrorism and assimilate.  He is a worry.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      05:10pm | 11/09/11

      to be perfectly honest,  I have to laugh at armchair conspiracy theorists…  go and read Foucault’s pendulum by Umberto Eco.  it will put everything in context for you, instead of seeing some off the wall internet video or some crap and believing it.

    • john says:

      08:37pm | 11/09/11

      @ John ” This is dark world, not a moral one.”

      When Reagan signed the arms deal to Iran it was most likely when he was groggy recovering in hospital from his assassination attempt in 1981 and didn’t realise what he signed -the question is- who gave the authority to him for signing that was most likely to profit the most?  We also know the terrorist that flew flight 11 into the WTC was trained in US flying schools about a year before in an Accelerated Pilot Program who on earth authorised foreign students to be trained in the USA how bizarre?  What I find even more disturbing in recent years is radicalism is alive an well in Australia with numerous arrests etc, the question is how did they get past immigration- who let them in? Amanda Vanstone? or a combination of current and former parties?

      The insanity on a global scale is worse, who and why did they give a theologian state nuclear material, how did Pakistan obtain it in the first place to make a nuke? How did North Korea obtain it to make nukes - well to me it all seems to be about one thing it always leads to a money trail that someone profits from. 

      Don’t be surprised that 9/11, given the dark world we live in is only just a precursor to an event down the track that involves something darker still than just planes flying into buildings. 

      Days like Roosevelt describing the previous day as “a date which will live in infamy” will be repeated over and over again…lockerbie,london, spain,bali, moscow, mumbai, africa, bombings seems like an epidemic now.

    • Zaf says:

      11:23am | 11/09/11

      [When the west wages war it does so with the general conviction that civilians should not be targeted. It’s the reason that place names such as My Lai, Hiroshima and Dresden resonate to this day, and still inspire debate among people in the west. It’s also the reason we have systems within our military whereby soldiers can be investigated, court-marshalled and jailed when accused of wrongdoing against civilian populations.]

      People were court-marshalled for Hiroshima and Dresden?

      (Either of which killed more civilians at one go than all the Muslim terrorist acts since combined.)

      Why can’t we just condemn the killing of innocents without trying to draw a long bow about ‘us’ and ‘them’. 

      Why not just talk about right and wrong?  I truly feel that it demeans the dead to use them as some sort of propaganda talking point.

    • Cleitus says:

      01:52pm | 11/09/11

      Noone was court martialled for Hiroshima and Dresden, but the consequence was the Geneva Conventions of 1949 outlawing the specific targeting of civilians to make sure it didn’t happen again.

      And it isn’t a long bow to draw to observe that when a western military kills a civilian during a conflict it is as an unintended, or occasionally a necessary consequence, of attacking a military target.  Civilians are to be kept out of the conflict as much as possible, and are never to made the direct target of attack.  For our enemies, directly and specifically targeting civilians for attack is the whole point of how they wage war.  The distinction is important when you want to have a conversation about right and wrong.

    • Zaf says:

      04:50pm | 11/09/11

      [No-one was court martialled for Hiroshima and Dresden, but the consequence was the Geneva Conventions of 1949 outlawing the specific targeting of civilians to make sure it didn’t happen again.]

      How’s that working out for Allied forces in Afghanistan and Paksitan? Lots of civilian deaths, how many court-marshalls?

      There are MANY reasons to find progressive democracies morally superior to the alternative.  But our repeated failure to live up to our own code of conduct isn’t one of them.  jmho.

    • marley says:

      06:55pm | 11/09/11

      @Zaf - the allied forces are not deliberately targetting civilians.  The Taliban are.  There’s the difference.

    • TracyH says:

      11:38am | 11/09/11

      John- do you truly believe this? U may as well join the Taliban - you are are theological terrorist.

    • John says:

      06:10pm | 11/09/11

      I’m a christian, it’s not the Taliban i seek, but the truth.

      “That is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you.” (John 14:17)

      “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me.” (John 15:26)

    • Paul Murray says:

      08:44pm | 11/09/11

      LOL. The only “truth” that the bible is interested in is the “truth” of the bible itself. Of christianity. It’s a navel-gazing, solipsistic truth that has pretty much nothing to do with the external world where things actually happen.

    • P. Darvio says:

      12:08pm | 11/09/11

      Some of the most disgusting reporting I have seen in the last few days are the reports of how many Christians or Muslims or Jews were killed on 911.

      I wonder how many Atheists were killed by the 911 Religious Attacks? Funny that never gets reported.

    • marley says:

      04:25pm | 11/09/11

      Oh come of it.  The reasons these reports are made is to refute idiot conspiracists who claim that (a) Muslims knew in advance so none went to work that day or (b) it was a Jewish plot so all the Jews stayed home.  No one has yet suggested it was an atheist plot, or an agnostic plot, or a buddhist plot, so no one has had to come up with the numbers of atheists, agnostics or buddhists killed. 

      You’re as bad as John when it comes to seeing conspiracies everywhere.

    • Jas says:

      12:59pm | 11/09/11

      “From New York to Bali, to Madrid and London, Baghdad and Mumbai, there’s been an ever-increasing body count as the forces of radical Islam deliberately seek out civilians as their targets of preference in a screwy theological war.”

      radical islamists didnt bring building 7 down via controlled demolition.

      http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/911-and-the-war-on-terror-polls-show-what-people-really-believe-10-years-later.html

      you want to believe the official conspiracy theory, fine, but dont insult our intelligence by pretending it really happenned that way, its disgusting to treat the innocent victims like that, and the millions of innocent men women and children who have died since, based on the lies of that day.

    • marley says:

      04:27pm | 11/09/11

      Well how about you don’t insult our intelligence by claiming that it was a demolition job based on doctored videos and a bunch of amateurs refuting the laws of physics.

    • Jas says:

      05:49pm | 12/09/11

      ...and doctored videos!? are we really to take you seriously?

      Evidence for the argument against the official conspiracy theory is based on videos, with-held by NIST, and only obtained after extensive freedom of information requests by these people..

      http://www.ic911studies.org/

      Seriously, if you want to argue the points here, fine, go for it..  theres nothing you can say to alter the facts that show 9/11 could not have possibly happenned the way the official story is being fed to you. However.. if you dont want to be made to look a total fool, youd better not turn up unarmed again unless youre on a suicide mission.

      regards…

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      02:56pm | 11/09/11

      Say what you like, David, we are safer if we don’t let them into the country.

    • Zaf says:

      04:53pm | 11/09/11

      No use crying over spilled milk, ToP.  Australia might be a more peaceful place without the history of convict settlement, but it is what it is.  Got to deal with reality.

    • Andrew says:

      03:43pm | 11/09/11

      Building WTC 7 in the World Trade Center complex in New York is the third building which collapsed on 11th September, 2001, the other two being WTC 1 and WTC 2 - the Twin Towers.

      The evidence in the following video titled “Solving the Mystery of WTC 7”, released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, proves that building WTC 7 was demolished using explosives on the afternoon of 11th September, 2001 at approximately 5:20pm.  The evidence in this video is very blatant and absolutely impossible to refute.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

      This highly engrossing video above is an abridged version of the following film titled “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and is more than two hours in length.  It is not possible to understand what happened on 11th September, 2001 without considering the mountain of evidence in this film which proves the use of controlled demolition on 11th September, 2001 beyond any doubt.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=11m29s

      This link is set to begin at the 11 minute 29 second mark at which one expert begins his testimony.

    • john the zombie says:

      12:09am | 12/09/11

      This will debunk you theory. shows how a building that has lost its integrity can collapse as though it was an controlled explosion.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtYKCu9XBDA

      failed Andrew failed.

    • Andrew says:

      10:49pm | 01/10/11

      Hi John the Zombie

      Here is the section of the video you referenced which finally explains why that building collapsed:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtYKCu9XBDA&t=40m47s

      The structural designer of the building had taken the live load into account when calculating the required strength of the structure but had failed to take the dead load into account in error.  The dead load is basically the weight of the building itself, whereas the live load is basically the weight of things that are introduced to the building after it has been constructed such as furniture, supplies and people.

      Therefore the structure of the building had not been designed and built to be strong enough to withstand the weight it had to carry.  The result was that the entire structure eventually disintegrated under the pressure of the load it could not carry so that the entire building collapsed.

      This is not relevant to any of buildings WTC 1, WTC 2 or WTC 7, since none of these buildings had the same design flaw.

    • Erick says:

      03:46pm | 11/09/11

      Wouldn’t it be nice to pretend that Islam isn’t a profoundly dangerous ideology?

      Sure, the majority of Muslims in Australia are peaceful most of the time. But that doesn’t alter the fact that almost all of the terrorism in the world today is Islamic in origin. And there’s a reason for that.

      Islam from its very inception was a cult of war. Its prophet, Mohammed, was a warrior whose greatest personal triumph was the capture of the city of Mecca. The central tenet of Islam is war against unbelievers.

      Individual Muslims might be nice people, but Islam itself is a toxic ideology, like Marxism and Nazism. And it leads to similar atrocities.

    • Marc says:

      08:39pm | 11/09/11

      I can’t claim to have everything you’ve ever posted but this is the first time I’ve read something of yours that is disagreeable (to me at least).

      “it’s prophet, Mohammed, was a warrior whose greatest personal triumph was the capture of the city of Mecca.” Wrong. Mohammed’s greatest achievement was scribing the Quran as an illiterate.

      “the central tenet of Islam is war against unbelievers.” Incorrect. There are five pillars of Islam, none of which refer to war (FYI they are: monotheisim, prayers, fasting, charity and pilgrimage).

      I can’t refute your third point (that it is toxic ideology ala Marxism and Nazism) as this is true of all religion. By this I mean that they all preach a degree of obfuscation when it comes to personal responsibility and encourage the belief in a greater good (whether it the greater social good, the greater national good or the greater spiritual good).

      While it’s perhaps true that the majority of terrorism today is performed by Muslims it’s myopic to ignore the past when this didn’t hold true (I’m speaking here of the Protestants in Ireland, the Hindus in Tamil Sri lanka, the Jews pre 1948 Israel, Christians and the KKK, etc…).

      Terrorism is extremism - there’s no need to come up with an underlying narrative. It’s an inhuman act performed by the very worst elements of our planet who have lost all perspective on what a moral framework looks like.

    • John says:

      12:02am | 12/09/11

      It’s comments like this that really makes me question your character. You seem to be acting as some form of right-wing constructive intellectual. Any person with an informed mindset will know that Islamic terrorism is entirely fictional, the west is being manipulated to think Islam is some dangerous ideology, but when one looks closely at this fiction one comes to the conclusion it is simply war propaganda. If there were not troops in the the middleast? You think this anti-Islamic campaign would exist?

      Then you have Nazism and Marxism? Pretty poplar opposites. I guess they have one party state solution, but then again just look at our democracy, it’s really one party state anyway. Our Democracy is simply theater, hiding the reality of a established dictatorship run by influential international bankers media barons. The west needs to realize the concept of divide and conqueror, someone is playing off the west against the middleast. It’s no surprise those Mohammed cartoons were published. That Hollywood ran for years television shows and movies with Islamic terror propaganda. Unit, 24 rings a bell. There are more of them, very subtle propaganda which one can pickup if one is aware of the agenda.

      Seems intelligent, but sometimes, I’m suspicious with some of the stuff you say. I’m surprised you have not even read up on 9/11 truth. That would dispel, the entire Islamic Threat in seconds.

    • John A Neve says:

      03:49pm | 11/09/11

      Multiculturalism is a nonsense, it can never succeed. A culture can never be
      multi, it can only ever be one thing.
      Assimilation, is another matter, we can and do absorb aspects on other cultures and so we should. We can all learn and better ourselves and improve our lives.
      But a nation can only have one culture, one language and one law.

    • stephen says:

      06:47pm | 11/09/11

      That is wrong.
      The real impetus to how we shall get along is, unfortunately for those who want the a purely Marxist interpretation of personal relations, which, of course, is too sophisticated for now, is money.
      Finance, and trade, will dictate how we relate for at least the next 25 years.
      Multiculturalism is not only a means, however, but will in fact, through Capitalism, define cultures even more.
      America knows this.
      Or I think Barak Obama does.

      This is in fact what we are fighting for :the old cultures have not reconciled international trade with Culture : that they can export and import ideas and ways of living and be influenced by us, and we them, and yet maintain an integrity.
      ‘Integrity’ is the important word.
      It’s the opposite, via reflection, to violence.

    • marley says:

      06:59pm | 11/09/11

      Canada has two cultures (at least), two languages and two laws.  It seems to work okay.  Democratic country, decent social values, no big law and order issues, solid economy.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      10:18am | 12/09/11

      Culture is far too obfuscated to at all real. So Canada has two cultures - does Australia have less with WASP and Aboriginal ‘culture.’
      What indeed do the Aborigines mean when they say “we have culture?” that the non-Aborigines do not have culture?
      What is the “cultural difference between an Italian and a German in Australia? In today’s terms multiculturalism means inclusive acceptance of individual differences which might coincide with another to form a group difference.There is no one culture in any country.

    • petery says:

      08:06am | 16/09/11

      Where in the world is a country that is not to some extent ,multicultural? If anything,the concept of a monoculture is a pure nonsense,along with the concept of a pure race.That certain politicians have won elections and started wars over these concepts does not mean they exist, just that the people who believed in them were conned.

      Those who absolutely HATE multiculturalism have a problem.To get away from it they will have to leave the planet Earth totally, and at present time this is only possible via Death. unfortunately,there is no absolute guarantee that the afterlife is not multicultural in any case,even for atheists.

      we have no choice but to coexist with different cultures, and deal intelligently with any problems that might arise from them living side by side.If this idea is abhorrent to some people here,don’t bother abusing me with angry rants about how wrong I supposedly am,or offer me funny web site addresses that will set me straight.I have too many other Real issues to cope with. To take any notice of them

    • stephen says:

      04:16pm | 11/09/11

      But we’re fighting the Taliban and immoderate Muslims.
      I don’t, on TV or hear on the radio a swag of moderate Muslims taking up the flag and heading off to take on the hardheads, those that give them a bad name.
      Instead, they’re over here on boats looking for freedom and money and a house : all the things that our enemies would take away.

      If Muslims want a fair go, where are their warriors ?
      (i.e. the ones’ that are not setting fire to detention centres because they can’t go to Ramadan celebrations, that is ?)

    • Terry says:

      05:23pm | 11/09/11

      Was it not an Anders that was responsibe for the latest atrocity? What a silly ignorant article.

    • Erick says:

      07:34pm | 11/09/11

      “Was it not an Anders that was responsibe for the latest atrocity?”

      No. That was months ago.

      The latest atrocities are these.

    • marley says:

      07:16pm | 11/09/11

      @Terry - so what exactly is your issue with considering this date as a time to reflect?  Because that, in case you missed it, was the point of the article.

    • sam says:

      09:19pm | 11/09/11

      multiculturalism is not working but its people like you who will flog it to death saying its working

    • Joel says:

      04:03am | 12/09/11

      Sam, do you actually have any evidence of the failure of multicultrualism or is it simply a cliche to be repeated endlessly, because while ill-informed speculation might be par for the course generally on the internet I would love to see something approaching evidence for your conclusion.

    • Joel says:

      03:51am | 12/09/11

      David, you state that “When the west wages war it does so with the general conviction that civilians should not be targeted” which certainly sounds nice. However ‘general conviction’ or otherwise more civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of the West’s response than died in the original event. Pretty sure civilians killed, regardless of intent all end up dead. How about some space in your column for those killed in the west’s response?

    • marley says:

      07:12am | 12/09/11

      Well, in Afghanistan, many of the civilians have been killed because the Taliban, unlike the West, does deliberately target them.  And a lot of the deaths in Iraq are also civilians of the wrong sect or faction,deliberately targeted by their opponents.  Whether we should be in either place is doubtful - but that doesn’t absolve those who choose to set bombs in marketplaces or shoot up mosques.

    • Joel says:

      10:21am | 12/09/11

      Marley, without a doubt a large number of the casualties from both Iraq and Afghanistan are the result of religious and trouble conflicts within the populace. However before we get on our self righteous western high hourse we should remember that the west has killed more civilians in these conflicts than were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

    • Martin says:

      06:55am | 12/09/11

      It’s about oil, even John Howard said that. So I never got too emo about it. But I do appreciate the petrol and all the other stuff that oil makes or is involved in, ie pretty much everything, so thanks.

    • Peter says:

      09:17am | 12/09/11

      In all this, do not forget the absurdity that was the Invasion of Iraq.  Remember Tony Blair, George Bush and John Howard harping on about WMDs?  Making a mockery of the UN and international law?  People were fed a load of rubbish and believed it simply because they were angry and wanted to kick ass. 

      Let’s not lose sight of that when we remember 9/11.  Our leaders ultimately failed us.  They panicked. They took their eyes off the ball and made things worse. They turned what should have been a determined, unified police action to seek out and destroy the people who were actually responsible for 9/11 into a full blown war against Islam.  They did not calm the situation.  They inflamed the issue and ten years later the world is still having to deal with their mess.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      11:37am | 12/09/11

      Let’s look at one issue here: We talk about military deaths as being legitimate in a war but what in fact is a civilian? Is the politician who declares the war a civilian? Is the government that arms the army civilian? Are the contractors that transport the munitions civilians? are the CIA operatives that control the drones in their attacks civilians? I’m talking of both sides here.
      Was the bombing of Japan’s and Germany’s civilians legitimate because hit ended the war sooner - thus making them legitimate military targets?
      Two armies no longer face each other on a field of battle - total war includes terrorism - terrorism like London, Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima and now the World Trade Centre.

    • OchreBunyip says:

      01:10pm | 12/09/11

      Terrorism has become the term used by the west for fighting strategy’s they don’t like and are ideologically ill-equipped to confront. Whether a combatant means to harm a civilian or not, makes no difference to the civilians they are still maimed or dead. The west has harmed its share of civilians, both accidentally and deliberately, and we’ve made our excuses and moved on. Why do people find it so hard to imagine the Moslem extremists can do the same?

      Part of any war is propaganda; it is important our enemy is portrayed as not like us, they speak a foreign tongue, they believe in foul rituals, they are coming for our children. Whatever the angle used, the civilian population, which is needed to support any war, needs to remain convinced that our enemy is less than human. Sufficiently alien that killing them is not as bad as gunning down a shop keeper or a bank teller or a cop, or any of our own people that others, who are also our own people, kill every day. If we empathise with our enemy too much, we might understand them and realise that we really are not that different after all. Then the journo’s, who haven’t sold out to the propaganda machine, publish pictures of the horrors perpetrated in our name by our side and the civilian populace loses its fire.

      The terrorists on September 11 didn’t change the world, London experienced bombs for decades, as one example, and that didn’t change the world for decades. The only real differences this time (1) it was on mainland USA soil and (2)  the scale of the attack. The politicians seized an opportunity to change the world, whether out of fear, malice or political opportunism is probably dependent upon the individual.

      Then we, the civilians, let them do it.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      01:56pm | 12/09/11

      and today…most of those being blasted to eternity by one of the two sides of Terrorism are being despatched there by those who claim to belong to the same religion.

    • Auth says:

      08:23pm | 10/02/12

      Goesh, I’m with you! Just as soon as I make the last penmayt on the Junior Baron’s college tuition—then it’s “Marching to Teheran” for me!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter