# Five years after September 11 - do you feel any safer in your country?



## cirrus

I am intrigued to know how this anniversary feels where you live. In the UK the panorama is less than inspiring. Younger muslims in many areas of UK life feel they are the object of suspicion purely for being muslim. Paranoia/ security precautions mean that getting on a plane gets so complicated that many flights leave without passengers because the security process has become so involved that even two hour check ins aren't enough time.

Meanwhile the police on occasion seem out of control. In July 250 police raided a house less than a mile away from me, took the place apart over a week and found absolutely nothing. With the latest alleged plot to blow up airliners crossing the Atlantic the response of many people I know was cynicism and disbelief.

Our government is in the process of tearing itself apart over the decision to support the invasion of Irak. Five years down the line do you feel any safer where you are?


----------



## coconutpalm

I feel safe, but I'm in China. Nowhere near America or Britain. 
I suppose I wouldn't feel safe at all in Iraq.


----------



## claudine2006

coconutpalm said:


> I feel safe, but I'm in China. Nowhere near America or Britain.
> I suppose I wouldn't feel safe at all in Iraq.


I agree with you. I feel safer than if I were in Iran, Irak, Palestina, Lebanon. I know I'm lucky.


----------



## linguist786

cirrus said:


> Younger muslims in many areas of UK life feel they are the object of suspicion purely for being muslim.


That is _exactly_ how I feel. I hate the fact that because of a handful of mindless idiots, people automatically become "scared" when they see a Muslim with a jubbah or a topi or a turban. (Although I agree you can't blame them).

I went to Ireland about 2 weeks ago with my sister who wears a "pardah" (something which covers her whole face except her eyes) and everyone was looking at her as though she's some kind of terrorist . Educated people would know that people wear the pardah (+ Hijaab) for modesty.

As a practising Muslim, I have decided to keep a beard (as is the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم). Now everytime I travel, I get all sorts of looks. 

I just feel mega peed-off that a bunch of idiots have spoiled it for the rest of us. Islam is a peaceful beautiful religion - nowhere does it promote terrorism - it prohibits it infact.

At the moment, I just feel worried about the future. As a linguist, I would love to travel the world and experience different cultures, but because of 9/11, 7/7 and all these other incidents, the future looks bleak..


----------



## ireney

Nope, but that's just because my country was never a target of/for terrorists from abroad. I will probably have to move to the U.S. next year though but I won't be live in fear of dying/getting hurt by a terrorist attack while there . I think that, in most places in the world, there is  a greater danger of dying from another cause than being the victim of a terrorists' hit. I am just glad I don't live or plan to move to one of these "few" places and I would be gladder still if there were none.


----------



## luis masci

No, I don’t feel safe at all. Taking aside common crime (the main reason for unsafe feeling here) and focusing only in terrorism matter, I’d say we are quite more exposed than people living in New York or London, because our security system is far less confident. 
What save us is because of our country is not a main target. However we suffered two big attacks. Israel embassy and AMIA (another Jewish institution). Both were big disasters with many victims. 
I think Argentina is relatively easy target due to bad control and filtrating borders. 
------------------------
Corrections will be always welcome


----------



## Chazzwozzer

I'll feel safe when all Kurdish terrorists(PKK) are caught and there's finally no threat from them. Al-Qaeda has been silent since its last Istanbul bombings in 2003, I hope something like that never happenes again. PKK is currently the biggest problem here. In the recent weeks, Kurdish terrorists attacked a beerhouse in my town and left 4 people died. And in Marmaris, 21 people were injured(10 Britons, 11 Turks) after the attack on a bus. I don't feel scared, but worried.


----------



## Fernando

I feel more or less equally safe than after 9/11 as a net effect of:

- Safer because Afghanistan bizarre Government has been overthrown. 

- Less safe because most European Govs (including mine) have decided not do anything against terrorism. Thay have virtually have their pants down, Bread for now, hunger for tomorrow.

- Safer because UK and US have not abandoned the ship.

- Less safe because they have been isolated and have done not-very-intelligent decision (Irak invasion as one).

- Less safe because most intellectuals have decided to "understand" the terrorists motivation.

- Safer because ETA has been reduced to impotency by French and Spanish Police.

- Less safe because the Government is taking no yield on that.


----------



## Outsider

No, I do not feel safer. Although my country is not a big target for terrorism, I think that insecurity elsewhere indirectly affects most of us. I don't like the growing feeling of being sandwiched between Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalism and Western Christian-colonialist bigotry. I detest both of them. In that respect, Al Qaeda have probably been more successful than they ever predicted.


----------



## hohodicestu

Hi,

I don't know if you should say that I  feel safer here in Mexico than in the US. Even though I'm located in the North which is very close to the US borders.


----------



## french4beth

Not really - I'm indifferent.

Some things that happened post-9/11 that I found scary:
After hiring tons of people to do security checks at airports, someone finally realized that security checks _hadn't_been done thoroughly on said new employees; once the checks were completed, many new employees were fired (article here).  Just found this article (dated today) in which some private security companies want to take over for the current federal security employees (that didn't work out too well the first time...).

Tons of new security equipment were purchased and installed; some of this equipment has already broken down & been scrapped.

Because 1 person got thru airport security with wires sticking out of his shoes, now virtually _everyone_ who travels has to remove their footware (???).


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I find it a bit hard to evaluate whether I feel safer or not, since I mostly live in very dangerous places by international standards. I do not think one can ever feel safer as there will be one thing or another.
  But let us just commemorate today all the victims of that terrible tragedy, which marked the new era of development of international ,intercultural and interreligious hostilities and pray for their families and friends.

 Our commiserations to all of you. We share your pain.


----------



## caravaggio

I feel me more unsafe with Bush free than with BIn Laden


----------



## GenJen54

I certainly feel less safe as now there is a sense of "invevitibility."  It's no longer "if," it's a matter of when, and that "when" almost happened last month.

I feel my current administration has done little domestically to curb the situation and assuage our fears.  Our government-led intelligence organizations can still not tell their respective a**es from their eyeballs, and fail to effectively communicate time and time again.

Sure, they've imposed more security checks at airports, sporting events, concerts and other large venues, but that has amounted to little but longer lines and/or much frustration.  The airport checks do make me feel somewhat safer, but not much so.

Internationally, the picture is even bleaker.  Our standing among world powers is at its lowest.  Our standing in the eyes of those who wish us dead is right in the crosshairs.

It's doubtful it will happen in my city, but then again, I never thought 4/19 would happen either.  The fact of the matter is "IT" will happen, one of these days, in one of these cities, in a moment when we have finally had a slight breath of relief and repose. 

The problem is, do we have little choice than just keep living with the fear?


----------



## cirrus

Sorry being dim what was 4/19?


----------



## GenJen54

The Oklahoma City / Murrah Building bombing from April 19, 1995.  Should have clarified.


----------



## Poetic Device

I don't feel any different as far as the safety issue is concerned after 9/11.  I still suspect a lot of things and I am still weary of a plethora of things.  I have never been on a plane, nor will I ever.  This may seem like paranoia but if it keeps me alive than I feel that I am all the wiser.

As for the profiling, I agree that it should stop.  Not only is it demeaning to the people that it singles out but it also thwarts us from people that are not of that culture/nationality that are a threat to not only the United States but the rest of the world.


----------



## Aldin

I feel safe here in Bosnia.We are so poor that noone would want to attack us,and besides we are not to important.I wouldn't feel safe if I lived in some countries of Europe(Italy,Spain,France,Germany,UK) because of possible terrorist attacks.But than again if I lived there I wouldn't be poor.The world was much safer during the Cold War,we all knew the enemy,but now...


----------



## Stéphane89

I feel as safe in Belgium right now as I felt before 9/11. Nothing has changed. I have never feared of taking the plane (well at least not because of terrorists), taking the bus or the metro. Belgium is a quite small country and I don't reckon it would ever be a target for al-quaeda or any other terrorist organization. Although I think if such an attack should happen here, we would soon fall in anarchy and paranoia. I would be catastrophic. People wouldn't dare to go out of their houses, it'd be like it was in 1940-45. People hiding in the cellars and everything.

As for muslim, their status has not changed either. They aren't considered as terrorist if they wear a beard or arabic clothes. People don't look at them as if they could all of a sudden transform into a killer. But like everywhere, there are excpetions. People who fear or hate them just because they are of the same religion. I find it really is a pity!


----------



## anthodocheio

caravaggio said:


> I feel me more unsafe with Bush free than with BIn Laden


 
I agree with that and I want to say that what I'm afraid of is not getting hurt or killed. I feel safe about these. There are lots of other things that can kill us anytime, just like a simple accident. What I'm afraid of is the route our world has taken. 

I don’t like things like extra security checks at airports that can make you lose your flight. They make me feel more unsafe than getting on my flight with no worries. 

And all the wars against the terrorism? Are they doing earth a nicest place to live?


----------



## heidita

> Sure, they've imposed more security checks at airports,


 
I am sure there is a better thread to post this, but couldn't find another thread.

I have just returned from the Red Sea. My surprise lies in the airport checks which  compared to European or Amercian standards are non-existing. No liquids are checked, anything can be taken into the plane, creams, drinks....food..There are big labels everywhere, but no checks are actually done. Plastic bags are simply not used or expected. 
What surprised me even more, was that _Egyptian Airlines_ offers food on their flights (that was the first surprise!! Iberia doesn't even give you a _hello_ anymore, so to speak.) but what I found really shocking was that they included cutlery, real steel cutlery, knives, forks, the lot. So what good is it to improve airport checks if you give all facilities on the plane itself?
Or do we have to gather that Islamic countries do not feel threatened by any terrorism attack on their flights at least?


----------



## alexacohen

1- The welcome on board messages are compulsory for all airlines which 
signed the the IATA agreement. This includes both Iberia and Egyptair.
The message is pretty much the same for all airlines, except Qantas, 
which allows its employees to improvise as much as they like. Aussies 
are quite original. 

2- "Real" cuttlery has been removed from the cheaper classes in most 
airlines. This was done for profit, not security. However, "real" cuttlery
is used in both First Class and Business Class.

3- Food is provided when you fly economy by most traditional airlines in short
range flights, if you pay for it. If you travel First Class or Business, you will be served
gourmet food. As traditional airlines fares drop down to match the low
cost airline fares, traditional services such as food, newspapers, toys for
the kids etc. have been supressed.

4- As most western countries focus in what is quite wrongly called 
"islamic" terrorism, and suspect every man or woman who has a beard,
is called Mohammed, wears a hijab, it would be quite useless to carry out
such stupid security controls in a country whose population practices 
the Muslim faith (most of them). Because each and every one of its 
citizens would be a suspect.
And it is quite impossible for a government to control each and 
every one of its citizens. If it was so easy, no Jew would have 
survived in Germany with the very efficient Gestapo chasing them.

6- Your last barb is quite out of context. Muslim countries do suffer 
from terrorism. Full stop.


----------



## georgemichael

I don't feel any safe when I have to fly. I am often the subject for a search even if I don't represent any thread, I am a young petite lady, and yet everytime the security at the airport has to search me through including  around my  underwear rubber band, my racksack get checked everytime, the only things they found are sugar, ipod,laptop recharger,cds and stuff like that, not wonder terrorist attacks happen, those are the people who  should be checked and surely walk though security freely.


----------



## Lugubert

In my country, I feel almost as safe as before. The reason is that we have no oil, so I think that I don't have to fear a USAian invasion. On the other hand, I feel much less safe when having to walk through airport security controls with my trousers belt removed.


----------



## Loob

I have never felt safe, not least because of Irish terrorism in the UK.

9/11 makes no difference.

Loob


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

Loob said:


> I have never felt safe, not least because of Irish terrorism in the UK.
> 
> 9/11 makes no difference.
> 
> Loob


 

Loob, I consider your mentioning "Irish terrorism" not politically correct. It reminds me of the Spaniards that talk about "Basque terrorism". Only a very few percentage of Basque or Irish are terrorist... And the same with the Arabs. And then we should remember that there are others who are terrorists as well, though in a more subtle way.

As for feeling safe, as a regular traveler and citizen of a pretty big city with lots of tourists and inhabitats; no, I do not feel safe, but I do not blame a specific group of people or religion: it's all of us fighting with each other what makes this a crazy world.


----------



## alexacohen

TraductoraPobleSec said:


> As for feeling safe, as a regular traveler and citizen of a pretty big city with lots of tourists and inhabitats; no, I do not feel safe, but I do not blame a specific group of people or religion: it's all of us fighting with each other what makes this a crazy world.


 
You're right, my dear friend. Terrorists do not belong to any nation or religion. 
Putting terror and fear in the hearts of the rest of people is the only creed they have.


----------



## Loob

You're right, TraductoraPobleSec.

My point was simply that the fear I felt - over many years - related to terrorism emanating from Ireland. And the bomb I heard - the bomb that killed a British politician - was an Irish bomb.

That does not mean - far from it - that I dislike or fear Irish people.

Loob


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

Loob said:


> You're right, TraductoraPobleSec.
> 
> My point was simply that the fear I felt - over many years - related to terrorism emanating from Ireland. And the bomb I heard - the bomb that killed a British politician - was an Irish bomb.
> 
> That does not mean - far from it - that I dislike or fear Irish people.
> 
> Loob


 
Dear Loob.

I still dislike very much the way you put it, and I am sure that the Irish here will agree. I am friends with a niece of Ernest Lluch, a university professor and influential politician who was killed by ETA in 2000. However, *I would never say* that my friends's uncle was killed by a Basque gun.


----------



## Jocaste

TraductoraPobleSec said:


> Loob, I consider your mentioning "Irish terrorism" not politically correct.


I feel the same way when I read "_Irish terrorism_" ... It's too generalizing I think. In this case, we could charge anyone with anything.

And to feel safe, it's a also a matter of self-confidence for me. Of course, in certain situations, I don't exactly feel safe and with all things which have happened (I mean terrorism & co), sometimes we're a bit too paranoid and too suspicious (2 years ago, I travelled by air and just because a man looked like an Arab - he had a long beard and and was dark-skinned - he had been arrested to be controlled by the police who let him go few minutes later ... no comment) , but overall in the day-to-day life, I don't want to spoil life because of things I heard about bomb-attacks etc ...
In this case, I should better shut myself up in my room and never get out of it.
Right, a bit exaggerated, I know  but I am from freedom, and things like the attacks on September the 11th are so coarse, so rough things to scare people than they just consolidate my feelings : we don't have to let those things intimidate us, because, if so, those threats will run the world. And we have already seen what it is a country run this way.


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

You are right, Jocaste. It's true everyone should carry on with their lives. Still, when you are at home getting your suitcase ready for your plane trip and have to separate the liquids and put them in plastic bags and remember to carry them with you or when you are in cities like London and notice that there are no litter bins at underground stations, aren't those signs reminders that something is going on? 

The sad thing is that the crash of civilizations has more to do with politicians' interests than with us citizens of any place.


----------



## Loob

cirrus said:


> I am intrigued to know how this anniversary feels where you live. In the UK the panorama is less than inspiring. Younger muslims in many areas of UK life feel they are the object of suspicion purely for being muslim. Paranoia/ security precautions mean that getting on a plane gets so complicated that many flights leave without passengers because the security process has become so involved that even two hour check ins aren't enough time.
> 
> Meanwhile the police on occasion seem out of control. In July 250 police raided a house less than a mile away from me, took the place apart over a week and found absolutely nothing. With the latest alleged plot to blow up airliners crossing the Atlantic the response of many people I know was cynicism and disbelief.
> 
> Our government is in the process of tearing itself apart over the decision to support the invasion of Irak. Five years down the line do you feel any safer where you are?


 
No, I don't feel safer.

Loob


----------



## xenon

Lugubert said:


> In my country, I feel almost as safe as before. The reason is that we have no oil, so I think that I don't have to fear a USAian invasion.


Funny how nobody was too concerned about the term "USAian invasion". Does that mean that everyone from the USA is an invader? No, of course not. But if the invasion was by the US government then it seems accurate enough to call it an American (or USAian, if you prefer) invasion. Likewise with "Irish terrorism", "British colonialism" or whatever. Saying that someone was killed by a "Basque gun" is a different thing. It's not usual not ascribe a nationality to a single gun.


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

I've also just remembered that the evening after the horrible bombings in Madrid (March, 11th), *a Muslim friend of mine* from Amman, Jordan, sent me a very moving and sympathetic SMS.


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

xenon said:


> Likewise with "Irish terrorism", "British colonialism" or whatever. Saying that someone was killed by a "Basque gun" is a different thing. It's not usual not ascribe a nationality to a single gun.


 
I mentioned the Basque gun because of this:




Loob said:


> And the bomb I heard - the bomb that killed a British politician - was an Irish bomb.


 
Still, Xenon, I believe that we have to be careful when adscribing a nationality to certain acts. It can be extremely harmful and there is no doubt that the media have not helped in this sense.


----------



## xenon

I agree with you on that. And sorry because I didn't see that Loob had written "an Irish bomb". I personally wouldn't describe a weapon with a nationality. But in my opinion, "Irish terrorism" is just a descriptive term. If you go too far down the road of not ascribing nationalities to acts then you wouldn't even be able to say "French Resistance".


----------



## Jocaste

TraductoraPobleSec said:


> The sad thing is that the crash of civilizations has more to do with politicians' interests than with us citizens of any place.


Said with the right words 
If they just care a bit more about our planet and people's needs ... what a beautiful world it would be


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

xenon said:


> But in my opinion, "Irish terrorism" is just a descriptive term. If you go too far down the road of not ascribing nationalities to acts then you wouldn't even be able to say "French Resistance".


 
Hi again Xenon. I agree, but I was saying that, still, we have to be careful: in some cases, this is how many perjudices against other cultures are forged. Nowadays, the media is to blame in many cases.

And, Xenon, in the case of "Irish terrorism" being a descriptive term, I don't think the Irish would agree with you...


----------



## Loob

TraductoraPobleSec said:


> Hi again Xenon. I agree, but I was saying that, still, we have to be careful: in some cases, this is how many perjudices against other cultures are forged. Nowadays, the media is to blame in many cases.
> 
> And, Xenon, in the case of "Irish terrorism" being a descriptive term, I don't think the Irish would agree with you...


 

"Irish terrorism" has no implication that people from Ireland are all terrorists.

It means "terrorism that emanates from Ireland"; as distinct from "terrorism that emanates from Scotland" or "terrorism that emanates from France".

I'm beginning to feel uptight here.  Think I'll unsubscribe from this thread.

Loob


----------



## xenon

TraductoraPobleSec said:


> And, Xenon, in the case of "Irish terrorism" being a descriptive term, I don't think the Irish would agree with you...


Hi traductora...

I guess we are going a bit off-topic now, but in the context of British politics, what else would you use to call terrorism from Ireland? "Irish terrorism" seems like a pretty good description to me. Similarly, "British colonialism" fits the bill quite nicely to describe Britain's presence in Ireland.

Saying "An Irish bomb blew up that building" instead of "A terrorist bomb blew up that building" is a different matter.

By the way, when you say "I don't think the Irish would agree with you", you are implying that I think "Irish terrorism" is a descriptive term because I am from the UK, when in fact it is just a language issue for me. Although it's not very relevant to this discussion, both my parents (and therefore all my family) are Irish.

EDIT: I totally agree with what Loob has said.


----------



## Solbrillante

I refuse to live in fear and hope to be part of the solution (not  the problem).


Sol


----------



## Loob

Solbrillante said:


> I refuse to live in fear and hope to be part of the solution (not the problem).
> 
> 
> Sol


Finally - before I unsubscribe - yes!!!

That's exactly my point!

Loob


----------



## ernest_

xenon said:


> But if the invasion was by the US government then it seems accurate enough to call it an American (or USAian, if you prefer) invasion. Likewise with "Irish terrorism", "British colonialism" or whatever.



As far as I know, it's the US military who is invading other countries, and it was the British state who did the same in the days of the British empire (EDIT: well it's doing the same right now); but the so-called terrorists in Nortern Ireland those are fully independent from any state or national entity that legitimately represents the Irish people, therefore I can see why some people may feel unconfortable when you call them Irish terrorists.


----------



## xenon

ernest_ said:


> As far as I know, it's the US military who is invading other countries, and it was the British state who did the same in the days of the British empire (EDIT: well it's doing the same right now); but the so-called terrorists in Nortern Ireland those are fully independent from any state or national entity that legitimately represents the Irish people, therefore I can see why some people may feel unconfortable when you call them Irish terrorists.


On the basis of what you've said, a nationality can only be used as an adjective when it refers to a state or an action carried out by a state . Anyway, you make the wrong assumption that those "so-called terrorists" are only from Northern Ireland.

Let's see: Terrorism emanating from Ireland = Irish terrorism. Hamster fetishism emanating from Azerbaijan = Azerbaijani hamster fetishism. Simple as.

By the way, if any of your family or friends had been killed in a terrorist act, I'm sure you would be happy to hear the people who had done it referred to as "so-called terrorists".


----------



## LaReinita

I don't feel safer.  I think they'll probably strike again soon.  And as far as the whole "Irish terrorists" thing . . I agree with Loob and xenon.


----------



## Loob

TraductoraPobleSec said:


> Dear Loob.
> 
> I still dislike very much the way you put it, and I am sure that the Irish here will agree. I am friends with a niece of Ernest Lluch, a university professor and influential politician who was killed by ETA in 2000. However, *I would never say* that my friends's uncle was killed by a Basque gun.


Tempted back...

How would you want me to put it, TPS?

Loob


----------



## panjabigator

I feel very much uncomfortable, five short years later, so much so that I can get uptight and nervous every time I go to the airport.  Mine is really though a racial fear, but not an outwardly discriminatory one like you might suspect.  I worry that the world is judging me just because of my color of my skin, and that I am subject to more scrutiny or attention just because of it.  

Anyway, returning back to the topic at hand, I feel really uneasy.  I do feel like 9/11 was very recent but still it's not too fresh in my memory.  I forget how easily something like this could happen again.


----------



## Lina_

America was the country that got attacked, yet we aren't that crazy. There is a lot of prejudice, but us citizens aren't freaking out. Most people have totally forgotten what they felt like after 9/11, and life goes on.
I agree with caravaggio when he says I feel more unsafe with Bush than with Bin Laden...perhaps you've heard of Guantanimo Bay...


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

Loob said:


> Tempted back...
> 
> How would you want me to put it, TPS?
> 
> Loob


 
Hi, Loob, good morning.

My point is that certain generalizations are harmful and forge hate. If the attack has been carried out by the IRA, then, it's an IRA terrorist act.


----------



## lamartus

TraductoraPobleSec said:


> My point is that certain generalizations are harmful and forge hate. If the attack has been carried out by the IRA, then, it's an IRA terrorist act.



I agree at this point, Tradu. I never called and never heard "Irish terrorism". "IRA terrorism", "IRA terrorist attack" is, in my opinion, the best way to call it. In Spain you'll never heard: basque terrorism because basque people aren't terrorist. There is a terrorist group but not a terrorist region or country. 
My two cents.


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

lamartus said:


> I agree at this point, Tradu. I never called and never heard "Irish terrorism". "IRA terrorism", "IRA terrorist attack" is, in my opinion, the best way to call it. In Spain you'll never heard: basque terrorism because basque people aren't terrorist. There is a terrorist group but not a terrorist region or country.
> My two cents.


 
Glad to see you share my point, dear Lamartus. Certain things cannot be stated "alegremente" because they are really serious matters: it's OK to talk about Basque cuisine or Irish literature, but not about Basque or Irish terrorism. We all know the names of the organizations who commit the attacks, so let's call them by their names. As simple as that.

Have a good day all!


----------



## alexacohen

xenon said:


> But in my opinion, "Irish terrorism" is just a descriptive term. If you go too far down the road of not ascribing nationalities to acts then you wouldn't even be able to say "French Resistance".


 
But this is EXACTLY the point.
You can't adscribe terrorism to a nationality. 
If you want to do it because you're comfortable with the description, go ahead. But please, how would you then describe the mean attacks in the London Underground?
As far a I know, the authors were British. Was it, then, an act of British terrorism?

If we were to turn the tables, and apply the rule applied to "islamic" terrorism, which allows the authorities to suspect and harass and even jail a person simply because he "looks" like a faithful member of the Muslim faith, should we say that the IRA and the ETA terrorism is catholic terrorism and suspect, harass or even jail someone simply because he wears a necklace with a cross hanging from it?

Terrorism has no nationality and no faith.
I agree with you with all my heart, Lamartus and TraductoraPobleSec.


----------



## Sepia

TraductoraPobleSec said:


> Glad to see you share my point, dear Lamartus. Certain things cannot be stated "alegremente" because they are really serious matters: it's OK to talke about Basque cuisine or Irish literature, but not about Basque or Irish terrorism. We all know the names of the organizations who commit the attacks, so let's call them by their names. As simple as that.
> 
> Have a good day all!



How about it if you all tried to define "terrorism". It is really the cheapest, lowest kind of propaganda to define thoes peple as "terrorism" with which you do not sympathize and the others as, e.g. "freedom fighters". It is absolutely ridiculous.

Terrorists are those who use "terror" as a means to achieve their goals, period. Whether you could find ways of justifying the actions of the IRA, how can anyone claime that were not terrorism? 

They bombed targets that were not of any direct tactical importance. They used deliberately the media to improve the effect tha bombing had on society as a whole. That is "terrorism" right out of the text-book for guerilla fighters. As what else would you define it?


----------



## alexacohen

Sepia said:


> How about it if you all tried to define "terrorism". It is really the cheapest, lowest kind of propaganda to define thoes peple as "terrorism" with which you do not sympathize and the others as, e.g. "freedom fighters". It is absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> As what else would you define it?


 
I'm sorry, Sepia.
We already defined it:



> Terrorists do not belong to any nation or religion.
> Putting terror and fear in the hearts of the rest of people is the only creed they have.


 
No one here spoke about "freedom fighters", or tried to justify the actions of whomever. For the simple reason that terrorists are terrorists and no more.


----------



## Etcetera

There were several terrorist attacks in Russia in recent years. The scenario is always the same: first, people are frightened, and although they don't refuse to use the metro and don't stop going to the theatre, they are almost constantly on the alert. Then, as time passes by and nothing else happens, they gradually stop worrying and return to their normal ways of life.

Maybe that's right. People can't live in constant fear.


----------



## xenon

TraductoraPobleSec said:


> My point is that certain generalizations are harmful and forge hate. If the attack has been carried out by the IRA, then, it's an IRA terrorist act.


In Loob's original statement, she wasn't talking about a specific act of terrorism, rather terrorism carried out by various groups (not just the IRA) from a specific country over a number of years. She chose the term "Irish terrorism" to refer to this, a completely valid description in my opinion, for the reasons mentioned previously. If according to hysterical and illogical political correctness it is actually a harmful generalisation that forges hate, I don't really care.


lamartus said:


> In Spain you'll never heard: basque terrorism because basque people aren't terrorist.


If you put "terrorismo vasco" in Google there are 22,100 results. Among them you can find pages from El País, El Mundo, La Vanguardia, ABC, etc, etc, which all include that term in their reports.


lamartus said:


> There is a terrorist group but not a terrorist region or country.


 This is just stating the obvious. Only a complete moron would hear "Basque terrorism" and automatically think it meant that every Basque person was a terrorist. 


alexacohen said:


> But this is EXACTLY the point.
> You can't adscribe terrorism to a nationality.


In the English language you can ascribe any adjective to any noun you like if you think it describes it accurately. That was my point, maybe you missed it.


alexacohen said:


> If you want to do it because you're comfortable with the description, go ahead. But please, how would you then describe the mean attacks in the London Underground?
> As far a I know, the authors were British. Was it, then, an act of British terrorism?


* YES*, homegrown British terrorism. Why wouldn't it be? That is how I have heard it described in the media in the UK. Nothing to do with whether I am "comfortable with the description", that's what it is. Ditto with Irish terrorism.


----------



## lamartus

xenon said:


> If you put "terrorismo vasco" in Google there are 22,100 results. Among them you can find pages from El País, El Mundo, La Vanguardia, ABC, etc, etc, which all include that term in their reports.


And a lot of people feel they had been hurting by media. 
I didn't say the term wasn't use, I said IN MY OPINION is incorrect and I add: deceitful



xenon said:


> Only a complete moron would hear "Basque terrorism" and automatically think it meant that every Basque person was a terrorist



Basque people who ask us for don't confuse they with terrorist and I are moron then.


----------



## alexacohen

xenon said:


> If according to hysterical and illogical political correctness it is actually a harmful generalisation that forges hate, I don't really care.


Neither TPS, nor I are hysterical and illogical women obsessed by political correctness. Quite the contrary.
If you don't really care about harmful generalizations, it's your privilege. 
We don't like generalizations, and that's ours.


> In the English language you can ascribe any adjective to any noun you like if you think it describes it accurately. That was my point, maybe you missed it.


Oh, yes, from a grammatical point of view you can. 
Maybe I missed your point. Quite possible, as English is not my native language.
Still, you seemingly think that "Irish, British, Basque, Islamic" terrorism are accurate terms.
I don't. 


> YES, homegrown British terrorism. Why wouldn't it be? That is how I have heard it described in the media in the UK. Nothing to do with whether I am "comfortable with the description", that's what it is. Ditto with Irish terrorism.


 
That it was described as such in the media doesn't mean it's true. The mere repetition of a lie can't make a lie become a truth.

Shall we forget this discussion and return to the thread topic, now?


----------



## xenon

lamartus said:


> I didn't say the term wasn't use, I said IN MY OPINION is incorrect and I add: deceitful


No, what you actually said was:


lamartus said:


> In Spain you'll never heard: basque terrorism because basque people aren't terrorist.


Which is why I mentioned about the use of that term in the Spanish media.


lamartus said:


> Basque people who ask us for don't confuse they with terrorist and I are moron then.


No. But if you thought all Basque people were terrorists just because of reading about "Basque terrorism", then yes.


----------



## ernest_

xenon said:


> On the basis of what you've said, a nationality can only be used as an adjective when it refers to a state or an action carried out by a state . Anyway, you make the wrong assumption that those "so-called terrorists" are only from Northern Ireland.



So, what if those so-called terrorists were black? Would you call them black terrorists? Why not? And why don't you call them white terrorists?



> Let's see: Terrorism emanating from Ireland = Irish terrorism. Hamster fetishism emanating from Azerbaijan = Azerbaijani hamster fetishism. Simple as.



As far as I know, hamsters have never been used as a pretext for starting a war. The same can't be said about terrorism. Do I have to remind you of the sinking of the Maine, the killing of archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Manchuria incident, just to name a few? That's why it's totally irrelevant if you want to call Russian rats Russian rats, but it is inadequate and dangerous to call a bunch of dubious individuals from Russia Russian terrorists.



> By the way, if any of your family or friends had been killed in a terrorist act, I'm sure you would be happy to hear the people who had done it referred to as "so-called terrorists".



Yes. And if you or any of your friends had been kidnapped, humiliated or tortured in the name of anti-terrorism, you'd probably be a wee bit more sensitive about attaching random adjectives to the word terrorist.


----------



## xenon

_So, what if those so-called terrorists were black? Would you call them black terrorists? Why not? And why don't you call them white terrorists?_

If their blackness or whiteness was relevant in the context in which I was decribing them, then I would. However, this would be an unlikely situation. As I said, it's just a language issue for me.

_That's why it's totally irrelevant if you want to call Russian rats Russian rats, but it is inadequate and dangerous to call a bunch of dubious individuals from Russia Russian terrorists._

No, it's the same thing. Rats from Russia = Russian rats. Terrorists from Russia = Russian terrorists. What is more dangerous is to say that the second one is by default a "harmful generalisation". I'm very suspicious of people who seem obsessed with trying to control the words we use to describe things, especially when those words are entirely accurate.

_Yes. And if you or any of your friends had been kidnapped, humiliated or tortured in the name of anti-terrorism, you'd probably be a wee bit more sensitive about attaching random adjectives to the word terrorist._

I would never attach a random adjective to the word terrorist. As for humiliaton and torture in the name of anti-terrorism, I know all about that because of where my family is from. I also know about what it's like to lose a family member murdered by real (not so-called) terrorist.


----------



## cherine

*It seems that the definition of terrorism and the choice of the proper adjectives to ascribe to terrorists have lead the discussion away from the original topic of this discussion:*


cirrus said:


> I am intrigued to know how this anniversary feels where you live. [...]
> 
> Five years down the line do you feel any safer where you are?


 
*Posts that will disregard this question will be deleted. And the thread can be closed with no need for explanation.*

*Thank you all for your understanding.*


----------



## -Epic-

I fealt safe before and after 9/11.

I live in Israel.


----------



## mhusoy

I feel as safe as ever.

It is just useless to feel more or less safe because of what some Islamic groups say and treathen. Society will not become a better place if more people are getting worried and paranoid.

The only way to counter the terrorist stuff is by being even nicer and friendlier to all those who we might suspice of being terrorists. 

The terrorist people are bad off socially and spiritually.. they can be turned from their evil if the rest of us invites them into our lives and show them true love. They are also victims of terrorism..


mhusoy


----------



## sdgraham

mhusoy said:


> The only way to counter the terrorist stuff is by being even nicer and friendlier to all those who we might suspice of being terrorists.



I am quite happy dealing with security measures, not so much because of 9/11, but more because I had a close colleague who perished on PanAm 103 that was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.

I do not feel that simply being nice to zealots who want to kill me will change their minds. I'm old enough to recall what being nice to the Nazis got a number of countries in 1938 onward.


----------



## jinti

Etc.'s description of Russia applies to New York pretty well, too, I think:


Etcetera said:


> There were several terrorist attacks in Russia in recent years. The scenario is always the same: first, people are frightened, and although they don't refuse to use the metro and don't stop going to the theatre, they are almost constantly on the alert. Then, as time passes by and nothing else happens, they gradually stop worrying and return to their normal ways of life.
> 
> Maybe that's right. People can't live in constant fear.


 
When anything happens here (like the steam pipe explosion in Manhattan some time ago), people's first question is still whether it was terrorism. And then, when they hear "No, it was just more evidence of a dangerously dilapidated city infrastructure with insufficient safety procedures in place", they all relax.


----------



## mhusoy

sdgraham said:


> I am quite happy dealing with security measures, not so much because of 9/11, but more because I had a close colleague who perished on PanAm 103 that was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.
> 
> I do not feel that simply being nice to zealots who want to kill me will change their minds. I'm old enough to recall what being nice to the Nazis got a number of countries in 1938 onward.


 
Well, I can understand that of course. What I was trying to say is that we should do what we can to include outsiders who might otherwise turn to extremist ideologies.

Of course we shouldn't be naive in dealing with those groups, but I still believe that we must all work together to avoid showing racist and alienating attitudes toward big groups (such as Muslim immigrants).

I totally agree with you that we should work against the extreme Islamic groups and instead support the peaceful and democratic elements which exist somewhere. Promoting human rights is a good way of doing it, and this also includes treating those big groups in a good way.


----------



## cirrus

jinti said:


> When anything happens here (like the steam pipe explosion in Manhattan some time ago), people's first question is still whether it was terrorism. And then, when they hear "No, it was just more evidence of a dangerously dilapidated city infrastructure with insufficient safety procedures in place", they all relax.


Isn't it amazing how we just shrug our shoulders at things like car accidents and any amount of preventable deaths and say words to the effect of that's life?  When an an attack happens suddenly utterly random deaths become worldwide headlines  even though the overall numbers  are probably much less.


----------



## Fernando

jinti said:


> When anything happens here (like the steam pipe explosion in Manhattan some time ago), people's first question is still whether it was terrorism. And then, when they hear "No, it was just more evidence of a dangerously dilapidated city infrastructure with insufficient safety procedures in place", they all relax.



I see good reasons for that attitude:

1) Did the steam pipe explosion cause 3,000 deaths? No.

2) Do the people think that the overall safety procedures are OK? Yes. I am pretty sure that 3,000 deaths should have produced a change in people's attitude to the safety procedures?

3) The simple awareness that there are people somewhere in the world ready to directly produce no-matter-how-many deaths to achieve their objectives (quite imprecise to say the least is frightening.


----------



## alacant

I agree with Caravaggio, It worries me more that Bush is still free and has power than Bin Laden ever did. Anyway there are are a lot of theories surrounding 9/11 that have to do with the US Governmentand some are really sinister, and who knows if some of them aren't true. 

I not only feel safer living in Spain since our government took the decision not to be a lap dog like Tony Blair, (with his special relationship with the US) and pulled out of Irak. I also have a lot of respect for the government for doing it.


----------



## Fernando

alacant said:


> I agree with Caravaggio, It worries me more that Bush is still free and has power than Bin Laden ever did.



The only reason that Bin Laden has not DONE more is that Bush (and US and UK and Spain and a bunch of countries) decided to get rid of the Taliban regimen.

I think any comparison among Bush and Bin Laden as silly and irresponsible. No matter how bad Buh is as president (undoubtfully one of the worst US presidents), would you like Bin Laden as US president?



alacant said:


> Anyway there are are a lot of theories surrounding 9/11 that have to do with the US Governmentand some are really sinister, and who knows if some of them aren't true.



Unless you provide any evidence, I do: they are not true.


----------



## chaquito

alacant said:


> I agree with Caravaggio, It worries me more that Bush is still free and has power than Bin Laden ever did. Anyway there are are a lot of theories surrounding 9/11 that have to do with the US Governmentand some are really sinister, and who knows if some of them aren't true.
> 
> I not only feel safer living in Spain since our government took the decision not to be a lap dog like Tony Blair, (with his special relationship with the US) and pulled out of Irak. I also have a lot of respect for the government for doing it.




Well, "not being a lap dog" in this particular case was perceived by many (even myself) as being scaredy-cat. I mean, I know that you may say that the idea of withdrawing troops from Iraq was not because of the terrorist attacks in Madrid, but the timing was all wrong. The terrorists put the bombs to compel Spain to do that and presto Spain gave them what they wanted. At least I am almost sure that that is the way what they took it. 
And to "feel safer" because your country conceded to terrorist demands is nothing to be happy about.


----------



## Fernando

chaquito said:


> Well, "not being a lap dog" in this particular case was perceived by many (even myself) as being scaredy-cat. I mean, I know that you may say that the idea of withdrawing troops from Iraq was not because of the terrorist attacks in Madrid, but the timing was all wrong. The terrorists put the bombs to compel Spain to do that and presto Spain gave them what they wanted. At least I am almost sure that that is the way what they took it.
> And to "feel safer" because your country conceded to terrorist demands is nothing to be happy about.



Just to heartly agree.

We will not be safer for engaging in silly wars.

We will not be safer for conceding terrorist demands.

In particular and to talk about present events, US concessions to N Korea and S Korea concessions in Afghanistan have made the world a place much less safer to live in: the message is: if you are a really bad guy you will get what you want.


----------



## heidita

alacant said:


> I agree with Caravaggio, It worries me more that Bush is still free and has power than Bin Laden ever did.


 Very surprising statement. Would you like to see what Laden would do with the power on his hands?


> I not only feel safer living in Spain since our government took the decision not to be a lap dog like Tony Blair, (with his special relationship with the US) and pulled out of Irak. I also have a lot of respect for the government for doing it.


 
Another surprising statement. I would like to remind you that right now a terrorist Islamic group is on trial. So much for living "safer in Spain " thanks to the government.


> MADRID.- Esta mañana ha comenzado en la Audiencia Nacional el juicio a los 30 detenidos en las sucesivas fases de la 'operación Nova' acusados de planear diversos atentados en Madrid, uno de ellos con un camión bomba, contra la propia sede de la Audiencia. Este grupo tan numeroso tiene un rostro protagonista, el del presunto líder de la trama, *Abderrahman Tahiri*, conocido como *Mohamed Achraf*.


----------



## María Madrid

chaquito said:


> Well, "not being a lap dog" in this particular case was perceived by many (even myself) as being scaredy-cat. ...The terrorists put the bombs to compel Spain to do that and presto Spain gave them what they wanted. At least I am almost sure that that is the way what they took it.


I don't see it that way. A couple of years before the train blasts, millions of Spaniards demonstrated on the streets demanding our troops wouldn't be sent to an illegal war against the UN's recommendations. The current Government completely ignored that. 

The Socialist Party said the first thing they'd do if they won the election to be held 2 years later would be bringing our troops back home. Many people voted them for that reason. They won the election and their first decission was bringing our troops back home. As promised to its voters. If someone thinks that politicians honouring a promise equals being a coward I just don't get it. Of course claiming it was the case was a very useful approach for Fox News. But we know better than their viewers.

Bad timing? Yes, I can't deny it, but the promise and the demand to bring our troops back doesn't stem from a bomb attack. And we all know it. As for feeling safer, no I don't think anyone can feel safe in any Western country, but we have to live with it. It's the sign of the times. Saludos,


----------



## Solbrillante

When anything happens here (like the steam pipe explosion in Manhattan some time ago), people's first question is still whether it was terrorism. And then, when they hear "No, it was just more evidence of a dangerously dilapidated city infrastructure with insufficient safety procedures in place", they all relax. [/quote]

Hey jinti, just wanted to let you know that I had a good chuckle over your clever remark.  At least I think you were trying to be light-hearted...although I'm sure there exists a bit of truth to this as well.   I think this is just people's way of dealing with the inexplicable and horrendous acts of terrorism around the world.  There surely is not one of us who would have wanted to be on the 90th floor of the twin towers that day...we are stronger for it, we will never forget, but we will not live in fear.

Sol


----------



## alexacohen

heidita said:


> Very surprising statement. Would you like to see what Laden would do with the power on his hands?
> 
> Another surprising statement. I would like to remind you that right now a terrorist Islamic group is on trial. So much for living "safer in Spain " thanks to the government.


 
I'm sorry, heidita.

But Alacant's statements are not "surprising". That someone holds a point of view which does not match your own is not "surprising".
If everyone thought exactly as you think (or anyone else thinks), we would be living in George Orwell's nightmare.
Big Brother is watching you. 
People are still entitled to have their own opinion.

I was shocked by the terrorist attacks, I am shocked by *any* terrorist attack, but my life has not been affected in any way.
Except for security controls whenever I want to fly.


----------



## Sepia

sdgraham said:


> I am quite happy dealing with security measures, not so much because of 9/11, but more because I had a close colleague who perished on PanAm 103 that was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.
> 
> I do not feel that simply being nice to zealots who want to kill me will change their minds. I'm old enough to recall what being nice to the Nazis got a number of countries in 1938 onward.



Basically you are right. But we are approaching the point where the US forces + allies and private contractors (mercenaries?) have caused more collateral damage/kills in Iraq than about the same number of Nazi soldiers did deliberatly during the occupation of Denmark. 

Is it any wonder that this way of securing democracy causes counter-aggession?


----------



## chaquito

alexacohen said:


> I'm sorry, heidita.
> 
> But Alacant's statements are not "surprising". That someone holds a point of view which does not match your own is not "surprising".
> If everyone thought exactly as you think (or anyone else thinks), we would be living in George Orwell's nightmare.
> Big Brother is watching you.
> People are still entitled to have their own opinion.
> 
> I was shocked by the terrorist attacks, I am shocked by *any* terrorist attack, but my life has not been affected in any way.
> Except for security controls whenever I want to fly.




Come on, I think we understand that heidita is not "surprised" just because somebody has a different opinion, but because of how irrationally that opinion is being expressed. The original post *seems* to imply that it would be better to give power to Osama Bin Laden than do it to Bush.


----------



## sdgraham

Sepia said:


> Basically you are right. But we are approaching the point where the US forces + allies and private contractors (mercenaries?) have caused more collateral damage/kills in Iraq than about the same number of Nazi soldiers did deliberatly during the occupation of Denmark.
> 
> Is it any wonder that this way of securing democracy causes counter-aggession?


 
This thread concerns the events of 9/11, which ocurred well before the current situation in Iraq, or, for that matter, Afghanistan.


----------

