In a statement on his official
website www.moby-online.com, he said: "These organisations
exist SOLELY to protect us from this sort of atrocity. Very simply,
they have failed us. When we pay exorbitant taxes we expect a degree
of protection and security from the people who receive those taxes.
They have failed us."
There appears to be a Diana-style outpouring of emotions
happening here, which seems reasonable given the staggering events
of Sept 11. Twice the casualties of the entire IRA campaign of the
last 30 years, and a visual impact unrivalled since Hiroshima.
Comparisons to Pearl Harbour, however, do not stand up. Having lived
with the IRA in Blighty for 25 years, it appears to me as though
Americans are choosing, through naivety and a somewhat isolationist
view, to think of this as a traditional conflict, and one they can
The statement above combines ignorance of terrorism -- somewhat
understandable -- with rightwing anti-government sentiment, throwing
tax-paying in to fuel the fire. Perhaps Moby should live in any other developed
country to avoid these 'exorbitant' taxes, or receive a satisfactory
'degree' of protection.
The 'aim' of counter-terrorism is limitation, both in terms of
containing terrorists and preserving freedom. Its chief weapon is
espionage, a human pursuit with, naturally, human flaws. There is no 'act of
war', and no 'victory', to be achieved. While the world has such
inequity of wealth & divergence of religious belief terrorism is
here to stay.
Understandable as it is to view this tragedy in terms
of traditional conflict, the US & Mr Bush have to focus on
rebuilding, strengthening security & moving on. Any other course
of action (see previous failed attempts at bombing Libya/Iraq, or
Israel's revenge attacks) will continue a pattern that seems
only to have benefited terrorists.
Having rejected the Pearl Harbour analogy, let me finish in 1940s
London. Blitz mentality -- getting on with life, albeit painfully --
is as effective a technique (see Brighton bombing attempt on
Thatcher in 1984) as I've seen. Eroding civil liberties and/or
counterattack has only provoked further trouble. It's a harsh new
I've read quite a few articles on this harrowing topic, and disagree with many of the columnists I respect. Although negative & somewhat harsh, I think this is the most realistic assessment I've come across.
And after September 11, 2001, and the horrible, horrible deaths of thousands of innocent people, one thing will be certain: the world will be the same again after all...
Article (M Parris, The Times)
Basic point is, this isn't a war, it's terrorism. There is a difference in the intent of the attackers and the defenders. For us (the latter), it's a matter of
1) damage limitation without erosion of civil liberties
2) not playing into the hands of the terrorists by inciting further violence/terrorism with sweeping counter-attacks (see current world reaction)
3) seeking to understand why terrorists do what they do, i.e. attack causes not symptoms