When will the US media stop asking "Do they have connections to Al-Qaeda?"

Well, absolutely. But I can't see anybody in the US Gov or media saying "terrorism's this diverse problem that can't be solved militarily so maybe we need to look at its underlying causes and do something about them."

And I think that you do hear the media - some right-wing commentators excepted - talk about terrorism being a diverse problem. But they undercut that with this Al-Qaeda crap. The next step about "can't be solved militarily and underlying causes" would be great, but perhaps that's just as "partisan."

Didn't think so. There HAVE to be large threats, enemies and conflicts.

Plus, as a couple of the talking heads from McLaughlin Group finally noted on NPR today, it goes a long way toward masking the reality that there will be "home-grown" terror threats.

oh man, these guys were like the greatest skate punk band of 1988. Their split 7" with DRI was classic. My best friend kept getting in trouble for wearing their t-shirts allatime...

shit, man, since when have people been rational beings? it's like plenty of people have a desperate need to cling to their certain narratives, or else it's all over.

plenty of folks have no problem whatsoever denying the evidence of their senses, which the last 5+ years has borne out.

First of all, the US public has been bombarded with plenty of examples of how disliked they are, including the various articles about anti-Americanism published in regional US papers that we've seen here on ILE. True, that's not terrorism, but still.

Second, my original point was not about the unwashed masses, but about the media, most of whom should know better. (And we can skip over the media cynicism. Noted and agreed, but I just don't buy it in this case.) It's laziness.

my response was more to your statemtn about the obvious fiction of it all. since when has fiction prevented anybody from believing anything? hell, we just had the story yesterday about all those folks quakin' in their boots that the UN was coming for their guns, fer chrissakes.

i was trying to make a point that there's something deeper going on here, and i think it has to do with human psychology(or at least, modern american psychology). that there are these deep narratives they just *know* to be true, that are so entrenched that even, say, the loss of a son can't shake them lose.

i'm thinking of this as something opposite of, say, Kipling's change of heart after losing his only son in WWI.

it's like everyone does have that vested interest in maintaining that Everything's Just Fine, We're All Fine Here, How Are You? and will go out of their way to ignore any reality hinting otherwise(e.g. the NYT/WaPo burying the news in mid-2001 about the actual results of the statewide recount in Florida). Of course, reality will still seep thru, like with bloody, protracted occupations or completely losing an american city.

xpost