Thursday, August 10, 2006

Another Day, Another Terrorist History Timeline Entry

Now that we're again in a 24/7 Anderson Cooper CNN Fear Frenzy, some context and history might be in order. From everything you see on the 24/7 Fear Channels you might get the impression that acts of terrorism against the West are a brand-new phenomenon worthy of 24/7 Fear (not to mention significantly higher television ratings).

But that's not the case. Not by a long shot. I'm not saying it should make us feel any better, but here are a few links to webpages with terrorist timelines for attacks in the United States and around the world. Some entries include a short explication of the event in question. I list four below because some include events missed or left unexplained by others:

Significant Terrorist Attacks Against the United States and its Citizens 1946-2001, from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Another, less thorough list from

Another timeline with events for more than the United States from a Wikipedia entry (of course, it is Wikipedia but you get the idea)

Another quite thorough timeline from folks at the Crimson Bird Book Store in Stanfordville, NY. I like this one the best.

Again, I don't expect glancing at the above links (and there are tons and tons of others, as you might expect) to make you feel any better about today's events in the U.K. or any other terrorist action. Still, I do think it's important for us to get off this "these are the possible end times!" theme regarding this issue. Focusing, re-focusing, dwelling and obsessing on actions of the last five years like they are some entirely new, greater depth of "Evil" misses the historical context. There's been crap like this going on for years, the only difference seems to be that the terrorist are getting better at killing their enemy, in large part because they don't mind killing themselves in the process.

Oh, one more thing. I really hope this is the time, the "crisis", that shows the American people can see through the BS that Cheney-Bush vomit forth about Democrats being Soft on Terror and Republicans being the only way to prevent Al-Qaeda from strolling up Main Street U.S.A., bombs a-strapped. Of course we know they will say it, in fact Cheney has already said that Lieberman losing his primary fight was helping Al-Qaeda. I'm just hoping and betting that this is the time the average American understands that Everybody wants to stop terrorists, and that the use of fear and terror as a public opinion cattle prod to ensure continued Republican control is despicable.


Scott said...


I'm hoping with ya but I'll take your bet. You really want to wad your underwear, record Charlie Rose at noon and listen closely to Gonzales. That's the crux--PR political appearances that divulge nothing, confuse everything and imply immeasurable and constant threat. I'd like to believe that it's as simple as they don't trust us, but I think it is much more sinister and as you say, (s>)political(/s>)despicable.

I do think that what happened in CT brings hope. That was a essentially a local fight of National import and it brought on the proverbial "long riders". But, rather than the solo mercenarial types of yore, they worked voluntarily, collectively and ended up doing what I never would have thought possible.

Your everybody premise is spot on. Especially when all you ever hear is "we", "us" and "our" in a self-serving political context that makes it clearly sound like a privileged regime against the rest of "US"; "US" being both the rest of the country and humanity as a whole.

Somehow, either we deferred or they stole it (our participation). Better yet, it's both. We deferred to our politicians and they let them steal it. If we (voters) can learn from CT, I think there's a good chance we can take it back.


frannyzoo said...

Other Scott:

Sorry I didn't write back faster, and I didn't get the chance to see Alberto the Impaler on Charlie Rose to test the validity of your take. Somehow, I have the feeling I didn't have to see his performance to know you're right.

As for taking things back...I've stated elsewhere what I think about the significance of the 10,000 CT Democrats who made the difference in the Lamont/Lieberman race. As in not much. Still, there simply has to be a lifespan for the success of this "Republicans = Security; Democrats = No Security" BS.

Of course, FDR's Democratic coalition lasted for several decades. That shift, however, actually had some basis in reality (D's = social programs, etc.; R's = no social programs), whereas the BushCo crap does not, unless you count taking untold freedoms away as security.