"The Bloomberg rebellion against holding a terror trial in Lower Manhattan fits right into the sour, us-first mood that’s settled over the country.
. . . .
Safety is always a concern, but Al Qaeda doesn’t operate like a season of '24.' Terrorists don’t generally strike when it’s most symbolic or best serves a story line."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30collins.html
Collins obviously has never taken the time to study terrorism. As observed by Albert Bandura in "Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in Terrorism", which appears in Walter Reich's "Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind":
"Terrorists try to exercise influence over targeted officials or nations through intimidation of the public and arousal of sympathy for the social and political causes they espouse. Without widespread publicity, terrorist acts can achieve neither of these effects."
As further noted by Brian M. Jenkins in "International Terrorism: A New Kind of Warfare":
"Terrorist attacks are often carefully choreographed to attract the attention of the electronic media and the international press. Holding hostages increases the drama. If certain demands are not satisfied, the hostages may be killed. The hostages themselves often mean nothing to terrorists. Terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not at the actual victims. Terrorism is theater."
What Collins terms the "Bloomberg Rebellion" has nothing whatsoever to do with a "sour, us-first" mood. It has everything to do with moving the trial away from an exposed population center, protecting New Yorkers and exercising common sense.
Bloomberg for president?
Jewish New-Yorker? Hmm...
ReplyDeleteSafety is always a concern, but Al Qaeda doesn’t operate like a season of '24.' Terrorists don’t generally strike when it’s most symbolic or best serves a story line."
ReplyDeleteConfirmation of the notion that it is better to keep your mouth shut,than to open it and remove all doubt of your stupidity.
A terrorist would like nothing better than to reach out,show the vulnerability of the opponent,cracks in their amrmor.
To add upon my last response,terrorism is about demoralization of an opponent,to show that one's belief of security is an illusion,that safety regardless of safeguards is not possible.It is not solely about targets of opportunity or ease.Repeat targets are fair game,in fact desired. It's a constant,unrelenting pressure with players that care only for the cause,not their own self.
ReplyDeleteIf the powers in charge do not realize this,we've got a problem.
My comment, containing the substance of the above blog entry and which was submitted online in response to Collins' op-ed, was censored by The New York Times.
ReplyDeleteMy note of "protest" to a very senior editor of The Times:
Dear ____,
My comment, below, to Collins' op-ed of today's date was censored by The Times. Not germane? Foolish? Not specifically on point? Not 100% relevant to New Yorkers?
What was your "moderator" hoping to suppress?
Best,
Jeffrey
JG, not sure if it's the voice of the blog you are using, or if you are just p**sed off, but the NYT regularly deletes comments I make.
ReplyDeleteI put it down to junior staffers trying to make their numbers, and nothing more. I play a game sometimes, where I will copy and paste the same deleted entry several times.
Personally, I wonder why Collins and Friedman are given a place to voice their parochial views. Most of the time it seems like they are trying to justify their jobs. Friedman waxes eloquent about any place he visits and skirts the larger issues like he is on the negotiating team trying to convince North Korea that the end result of them detonating or delivering anything convincingly like a nuclear weapon will result in 120,000 Sq km of dust.
Gail Collins writes like she is on antidepressants, rather like a goldfish discovering the pirates' ship for the first time every time she swims around the bowl.
Friedman loves his 5-star hotels so much he comfortably posts his non-thinks from every hot tub he meets. I have hated him since he wrote "From Beirut to Jerusalem", a shallow, callow piece that supposedley gives him the bona fides to comment on anything he likes, when in reality he knows and understands little about anything except about how to guarantee his mortgage is paid.
Writers of their ilk are dead and they don't even know it. Most of my diatribes, politely written, are deleted from the NYT comment area. Welcome to the club.
Rob P. You can look me up on NYT under that username.
A letter I sent to the NYT:
ReplyDeleteSir,
How long will it be before you understand that Gail Collins and Tom Friedman are weak links in your chain of commentary?
Ms. Collins appears to write under the influence of antidepressants, while Mr. Friedman suddenly seems to be the expert of everything, and has nothing bad to say about anyone.
The humor value of Ms. Collins pieces are quite out of proportion to the intent I am sure, while Mr. Friedman becomes a 5-star hotel expert when things get quiet in the middle east. And believe me, he is no 'expert' on the middle east. He is a name that sells his own books, and nothing else.
Please, there are qualified people you can gainfully employ to fill your pages.
If you want a partial answer to the decline of revenues (I was a subscriber to Times Select PAID service as long as it lasted, and will pay to read the NYT online again as soon as you guys figure out how to actually ask people for money), look to who delivers the tripe.
I love the NYT because it is a bastion of good reporting. Please don't let loyalty to the past prevent you from making valid business decisions. That way lays GM and Chrysler, and a hundred newspapers that thought we wanted name-brand news (personality news) rather than simply good reporting.
Sincerely,
Robert Pratt
--address information deleted for obvious reasons.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteI will look for your comments.
The very senior editor of The Times said that he will check on Monday why my comment was rejected. He is convinced the moderators don't have a political agenda.
Jeffrey