9/11

[markib64]

Please forgive me for bringing this painful subject up, but I was curious as to peoples view on the medias' reaction to that tragedy. It was billed as a "terrorist" act and yet it was religiously motivated. Why then did the media not report it as such?

[KUSA]

Terrorism is not religiously motivated. They use religion to further their cause.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Terror is a tool that can be used for a variety of causes, religious, political, or social.

[Chad32]

It is an act meant to inspire terror in order to force people to conform t a certain standard. As much damage as destroying the towers did, it didn't exactly tear the country apart. It was just meant to strike fear and get people's attention, so it's a terrorist attack. Whether it was motivated by religion or not doesn't really change the intent.

[abaris]

It is an act meant to inspire terror in order to force people to conform t a certain standard. As much damage as destroying the towers did, it didn't exactly tear the country apart.

I daresay it did. Compare the society before and after. Think of all the civil liberties lost, and I'm not only talking about the USA, but on a global level. The so called war on terror created the perfect pretext for going all out on civil liberty and privacy.

[Exian]

On top of the points already illustrated above, I don't think the war would have gotten off the ground if it was branded a religious war, or a counter-religious extremist war. Just look at the flack Sam Harris gets for pointing to the atrocities committed by groups within Islam. Although, this is 13 years after constant consideration and re-imaginings of Muslims by Americans; prior to this, I'm not so sure the general public gave them a second thought, so maybe the powers that be could have persuaded us to go to war under that flag, but just about everybody can get behind "anti-terrorism".

[abaris]

On top of the points already illustrated above, I don't think the war would have gotten off the ground if it was branded a religious war, or a counter-religious extremist war.

On a random speech, Bush had a verbal flip and called it a crusade. Just saying, cause in his mind, it certainly was.

[downbeatplumb]

Please forgive me for bringing this painful subject up, but I was curious as to peoples view on the medias' reaction to that tragedy. It was billed as a "terrorist" act and yet it was religiously motivated. Why then did the media not report it as such?

It was religiously motivated terrorism. Like the IRA and Rangers versus Celtic matches.

[Chad32]

It is an act meant to inspire terror in order to force people to conform t a certain standard. As much damage as destroying the towers did, it didn't exactly tear the country apart.

I daresay it did. Compare the society before and after. Think of all the civil liberties lost, and I'm not only talking about the USA, but on a global level. The so called war on terror created the perfect pretext for going all out on civil liberty and privacy.

I have heard that, despite the heightened airport security, it hasn't helped capture many if any terrorists. Although I've also heard that most terrorists attacks are from local extremist groups. Not muslim terrorists.

There was definitely a change, and there's always a line between liberty and security. More freedom and privacy means more danger, but less freedom and privacy stifles people. We may be a social species, but we like our autonomy.

[Exian]

On top of the points already illustrated above, I don't think the war would have gotten off the ground if it was branded a religious war, or a counter-religious extremist war.

On a random speech, Bush had a verbal flip and called it a crusade. Just saying, cause in his mind, it certainly was.

And I bet that got the rightards fired up to some degree, but had the war been officially branded a crusade of the religious sort, the effort may have been weighed down considerably. Terrorism, in a sort of "Family Fued- survey says.." sense, is a safer bet garnering more votes.