September 16, 2001

4:41 PM

Some perspectiveon human tragedy.
posted by marknau (63 comments total)

Obviously, I'm not trying to make light of the horrors of what happened on 9/11. This is just a reminder that we humans have been through much worse and persevered. We've found ways to muddle through before, and we'll overcome this as well.
posted by marknau at 4:45 PM on September 16, 2001

Marvelous. Well-researched and fascinating, especially the bit about "which race, religion or ideology has been the most brutal" in this century...

Thanks for posting this.
posted by ook at 5:01 PM on September 16, 2001

I dunno. This is the very first few days of a totally new world. We don't know what this graph will look like in 5 years.
posted by jragon at 5:06 PM on September 16, 2001

but Mark, this past week's events weren't horrible because of the death toll, it was the way it was done.

For the first time, the world's enemy can't be seen, located, or attacked. You can't quite declare war on it, because it's not a country. It's so secretive it could take quite a long time to completely reveal who exactly is in charge. This event was like no other that preceded it.
posted by mathowie at 5:07 PM on September 16, 2001

Many thanks, marknau.
I've just heard on the BBC World Service that George W.Bush has called the current war against terrorism a "crusade".
Talk about bad taste, historical ignorance and unnecessary provocation...
What distinguishes the Jihad's "holy war" from our "crusade"?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:08 PM on September 16, 2001

If the distribution of war / atrocities is so even-handed, ie, blacks, whites, all religions, etc then what does this tell us about our species?
posted by Postroad at 5:12 PM on September 16, 2001

has anyone done a lives lost per hour calculation?

from a cursory glance at the list, most of the events occurred over several years as opposed to the WTC/Pentagon/Pennsylvania crashes which happened in little more than an hour (if i remember correctly).

still might not make the list, of course, but if you're going to look at by the numbers, it would help to look at the incidents in more than just one way.
posted by justkurt at 5:12 PM on September 16, 2001

Agreed, Matt.
But WWI was "totally different" because all the countries on the planet were slugging it out, and that was scary. Had civilization collapsed?
WWII had its share of "totally different" because of the Holocaust and Russian purges. How could people allow this to happen? Have we lost our humanity?
Look at the graph between 1930 and 1953. Do we really believe that we will be subject to 23 continuous years of million-plus deaths?
This problem has its own unique challenges. But so has every other one before it.
posted by marknau at 5:13 PM on September 16, 2001

reminds me of democide [homepage], but yeah first war of the 21st century, indeed.
posted by kliuless at 5:15 PM on September 16, 2001

Mathowie,

With all due respect, this is not a "first time" thing. These kind of faceless attacks have been rampant through other parts of the world for many, many years now. It's manifestation and magnitude on Tuesday is indeed unprecedented... but there have been many peoples and nations struggling against this particular type of enemy for a long time now.
posted by Danielle_T at 5:15 PM on September 16, 2001

Excellent link! Thanks.
posted by phatboy at 5:15 PM on September 16, 2001

An awful lot of dark space over the US on those maps, isn't there?
posted by jpoulos at 5:16 PM on September 16, 2001

One clearance.

As very well described in CNN's TalkBalk program today, "Holy War" is not an Islamic term. It is the term coming out of the Crusades.

Jehad means striving and making an effort for whatever is good. In essence, my very practice of writing this comment is my Jehad.

I know, this may give rise to the issues of what that "GOOD" is. But I believe there are many posts since Tuesday which try to explain that.

God Bless Us All
posted by adnanbwp at 5:29 PM on September 16, 2001

Very good link. Terrible genocide and mass murder has happened all over the world. People in the US don't seem to notice much if it is "foreign." True many of these were wars and happened over years. But take 800,000 in the Rwandan Massacres in just one year. That's staggering. (Not to be morbid, but by math many more dead per day than what happened Tuesday.)
posted by sixdifferentways at 5:36 PM on September 16, 2001

Yes, it was pointed out my math is off...still unbelievable.
posted by sixdifferentways at 5:40 PM on September 16, 2001

My mistake, adnanbwp, just shows the wall of ignorance we're up against.
My objection to the use of the term "crusade" was precisely because it was a series of holier-than-thou massacres, undertaken in the name of G-d against Islam and the Muslims.
To bring it up at this point is to rub more vinegar into those wounds.
We should all be against proselytising, missionaries and all those who want to save others by the use of violence and coercive propaganda.
G-d bless us all, indeed.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:48 PM on September 16, 2001

I totally agree, MiguelCardoso...his use of that term disturbs me. But within the context of his own religious worldview, it may indicate a lot about his thoughts and the actions he will choose.

Of course, that disturbs me too.
posted by rushmc at 6:02 PM on September 16, 2001

I was struck by something else as I looked at a map on that same site. Each of those skulls is 100,000 dead civilians. Each Star of David is 100,000 dead Jewish civilians.

If you feel helpless now, just imagine the helplessness those people felt. We are not helpless. We just need to choose wisely.
posted by marknau at 6:05 PM on September 16, 2001

Rushmc:
Perhaps you could explain something else which disturbed me. I consider myself fairly fluent in the English language but, obviously, being Portuguese and living in Portugal make it harder to fathom certain usages.
I refer to the President's initial statement, when he said we had to find the "folks" who were responsible for the massacres. I thought "folks" was affectionate - you know, like in "You folks" or in Jerome Kern's wonderful song "The Folks Who Live On the Hill" - and entirely misplaced when referring to murderers. Or is just generic?
Is this a Southern thing? Or is it as weird as it seems to be? Some American commentators I've read seem ambivalent about it; perhaps out of a wish not to offend the President at this crucial time.
I entirely agree with you that Bush's statements should be scrutinized as well as we can - and that is why I am bothering you for a reply.
Cheers.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:15 PM on September 16, 2001

adnanbwp, my understanding, is that Jihad is a spiritual struggle. That stuggle can be an internal one (stuggling with your own soul) or an external one (stuggling with those around you). It can be non-violent or violent. It can be physical, intellectual or emotional.

In my understanding, the word is used for many different things with only two ideas in common: that it is borne from a spiritual source and that it is a struggle.

With that and current events in mind, if indeed my understanding is correct, it is easy to see why people are using the word and why others have not a clue about its other meanings...

Correct me if I'm wrong.
posted by fooljay at 6:38 PM on September 16, 2001

In the South, "folks" has a wide array of collquial meanings from the endeared to the impersonal... It's synonymous in this instance with "people"...
posted by fooljay at 6:42 PM on September 16, 2001

5,000 Iraqi children are estimated to die every day from US-imposed sanctions...
posted by girlscantell at 6:54 PM on September 16, 2001

Or is it as weird as it seems to be?

It's weird. When he said it, everyone in the room I was in chuckled. It probably wasn't the appropriate word, but it's not a great faux pas or anything.
posted by jpoulos at 6:55 PM on September 16, 2001

Anyone know how these figures stack up against starvation, cancer, AIDS, etc?
posted by kd at 6:55 PM on September 16, 2001

Thank you, girlscantell, for coming in here and (pardon the expression) tossing a bomb. You can't just throw out something like that without making some sort of point. I agree entirely with the point I think you would make, but you're asking for trouble if you're just going to leave it hanging like that.
posted by jpoulos at 6:57 PM on September 16, 2001

I thought "folks" was affectionate - you know, like in "You folks" or in Jerome Kern's wonderful song "The Folks Who Live On the Hill" - and entirely misplaced when referring to murderers. Or is just generic?

As fooljay said, "folks" is a common colloquialism in Texas and other regions of the U.S. Depending upon the usage, I think it can have a number of different subtle connotations. I often pick up an almost patronizing air when people refer to others as "folks," as though they are trying to diminish the people they are referring to, and I think this is probably how I would interpret Bush's usage in this case. (Formerly, it was used more often in the sense of "just plain folks" or "regular folks," to show that one was not "putting on airs," but I think it has slipped to a more negative connotation now, at least some of the time.) It also puts one in mind of certain "tough guy," Western (the American West, not "Western" as used by the world to refer to the U.S. and Europe) dialect often adopted to project an image of autonomous independence and self-superiority, a la John Wayne.
posted by rushmc at 7:12 PM on September 16, 2001

Where else, fooljay, jpoulos and rushmc, where else? You're better - and quicker - than all my sophisticated American dictionaries. I specially enjoyed rushmc's fine semantic distinction of "folks" undergoing a slight degradation of meaning.
This you don't get from books and I appreciate it immensely.
(Needless to say I won't add "you folks"...)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:39 PM on September 16, 2001

5,000 Iraqi children are estimated to die every day from US-imposed sanctions...

Yes, this is true. The U.S. is also responsible for ruining the lives of the families of all of the murderers and rapists in jails today.
posted by fooljay at 7:41 PM on September 16, 2001

I specially enjoyed rushmc's fine semantic distinction of "folks" undergoing a slight degradation of meaning.

And at the same time, we use it when referring to one's parents as in "How're yer folks?"

Odd ain't it? No wonder English is so damn hard to learn...
posted by fooljay at 7:43 PM on September 16, 2001

5,000 Iraqi children are estimated to die every day from US-imposed sanctions...

I don't know where I heard this first, but I'm pretty sure it's not true. According to the CIA factbook, Iraq has a population of about 22 million and an annual death rate of about .64%. This translates to about 400 deaths a day total (adults and children). While these are only estimated figures it seems unlikely that they would be off by an order of magnitude.
cite: CIA Factbook
posted by boaz at 7:43 PM on September 16, 2001

some stats from voices in the wilderness uk...
posted by kliuless at 7:55 PM on September 16, 2001

Here's an interview with Bill Clinton taken Election Day. The interviewer pegs the number at 5000/month.

kliuless, your information is out of date. Another quote from the factbook (same citation as above):
"In December 1999, the UN Security Council authorized Iraq to export under the oil-for-food program as much oil as required to meet humanitarian needs."

Bill Clinton discussed this in the interview above. Iraq is now exporting, in dollar figures, more oil than it did before the Gulf War. If Iraqis are still starving, it's because Iraq's leaders want them to.
posted by boaz at 8:17 PM on September 16, 2001

And at the same time, we use it when referring to one's parents as in "How're yer folks?"

Odd ain't it? No wonder English is so damn hard to learn...

Good observation. I would suggest, however, that this usage may have similar roots, in teens' attempting to verbally diminish their parents and their authority in order to feel more adult and in control themselves. Other examples might be "Pops" or "my old man."
posted by rushmc at 8:18 PM on September 16, 2001

I honestly think, hincandenza, that you atheists would make the best arbitrators. You guys truly regard everyone as equally prone to rational and moral analysis and are thus unhampered by the pesky obstructions of faith and faithfulness.
I am not an atheist and so confess to thinking twice before posting, in case I betray or blaspheme.
However, I've been reading MeFi consistently for the last week and, just as the Devil has all the best tunes, I have to admit it seems that the atheists have all the best lyrics.
Although, of course, I can't help feeling this also was
in G-d's plan. So be it.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:25 PM on September 16, 2001

just as the Devil has all the best tunes, I have to admit it seems that the atheists have all the best lyrics.

Can I put that on my tombstone? That's great, Miguel. Truly excellent.
posted by jpoulos at 8:35 PM on September 16, 2001

The correct figure of Iraqi children dying is 5,000 per year. I dont think they have 5,000 children born per day !!!

This doesnot include the children that died at birth, or were born dead with abnormalities due to the waste uranium bombs.
posted by adnanbwp at 8:42 PM on September 16, 2001

The quote that I can't get out of my head is the Taliban official who said:
"There is no factory in Afghanistan that is worth the price of a single missile fired at us."
The more I hear about Afghanistan, the less I want to attack them and the more I want to build a thousand factories, restaurants, strip malls, etc. there. Now we have to prepare for war; let's hope that the 'better angels of our nature' have their day too.
posted by boaz at 8:52 PM on September 16, 2001

I can't help recalling the Biblical tale of the man who worried that he had no shoes until he met a man who had no feet.

Just for the record, that's not in the Bible, it's 100% man-made.
posted by kindall at 9:02 PM on September 16, 2001

The correct figure of Iraqi children dying is 5,000 per year. I dont think they have 5,000 children born per day !!!
Both my interview link and kliuless's link above listed 5,000 per month, and kliuless's link had an actual citation: Dennis Halliday claimed "4000-5000 per month" when he resigned. I do not know where he got that figure, but I assume he was in a position to know.
posted by boaz at 9:07 PM on September 16, 2001

Lets get one thing straight. Without a land force intervention into Afghanistan, what we will end up doing is bombing Afghanistan, and changing the position of the rubble, thats modern day Afghanistan.

Secondly, most people have already fled the densly populated areas. The only people left behind are those who dont have enough money to move.

God Bless Them
posted by adnanbwp at 9:09 PM on September 16, 2001

RE: 5,000 per day, month whatever... they are the result of sactions imposed due to THAT countries actions. i.e END the actions, end the sactions.. DO you SEE the difference? THEY have the power to stop it!
posted by HTuttle at 9:10 PM on September 16, 2001

LAST CHANCE TO RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT

DECLARATION OF WORLD PEACE


I stand in my garden and am confronted with stories of war against the planet earth, war against the human race, war against the soul, war against the air we breathe, the plants and the animals.

I stand naked in the garden. My only weapons are my heart, my soul and my mind.
I have studied the religions of the world from all angles. I have studied and served in it’s military armies. I have studied the economies of the world. Nowhere does it state or suggest that anyone has the right to blow up planet earth because they are too lazy to resolve their differences.

The saying “When two tribes go to war, then war is all that you can talk” may have been historically correct in the past, but it is nothing more than a bad habit. No Civilization can claim righteousness over anything if it means the global destruction of our air, seas, and soil. All peoples souls depend on the planet remaining intact. Violence has always been the act of cowards. and the act of war is nothing more than an act related to some sort of mental illness.

It has become obvious over the last forty odd years that international terrorism can only be defeated by a global effort to remove the CAUSE of terrorismat it’s spiritual, psychological, social and economic source.

I hereby charge the political, social, economic and religious leaders of the world with cowardice and hypocrisy if they sit back and allow the planet to be destroyed out of anger.

I also charge all the organizations and groups who profess to care for the earth and it’s inhabitants with the same incompetence, cowardice and hypocrisy for not coming forward and screaming “enough is enough”.

I say, put all the world’s so-called “leaders” in a room and don’t let them out until they have worked out solutions for immediate global disarmament and world peace.
I call for all the great minds of the world to join in focusing their genius on this issue before it is too late. This planet cannot afford another war in anyone’s language so get it through your thick heads.

I therefore challenge any Politician, any General, any Priest, any Industrialist, any Terrorist to meet me face to face in any Board Room, Battlefield, Church or Parliament.
Instead of you idiots taking out your anger on the planet, you can take it out on me.
posted by reindeer at 9:17 PM on September 16, 2001

The more I hear about Afghanistan, the less I want to attack them and the more I want to build a thousand factories, restaurants, strip malls, etc. there.

Hmm...I wonder what they're asking for it? Wouldn't THAT put a twist in bin Laden's knickers....
posted by rushmc at 9:28 PM on September 16, 2001

Just for the record, that's not in the Bible, it's 100% man-made.

As opposed to...um...?
posted by rushmc at 9:31 PM on September 16, 2001

HTuttle: what you're describing is, essentially, blackmail. A geopolitical game of chicken, if you will; but Saddam hasn't blinked, and we're left in the unfortunate position of caring more about his dying people than he does.

Either of us could give way and make things better.

All this is assuming that the Iraqi government is doing whatever it can to rebuild its civilian infrastructure and provide food and medical care to its population with the massive sums of money it's recieved and it's not enough. Which I doubt.
posted by dreamless at 9:34 PM on September 16, 2001

found some more stuff on the sanctions on iraq. i dunno if just ending them will help, tho. saddam is a dictator...

otoh, i did see on c-span one time this guy talk about authoritarian regimes and how they stay in power by demonizing "the enemy," in this case the US. so if the US stopped being the enemy, dropped the sanctions (and maybe even offer humanitarian aid!) then maybe saddam would lose his power base.
posted by kliuless at 9:37 PM on September 16, 2001

RE: sanctions killing 5000 per day/month/whatever

the sanctions aren't killing anyone -- it's the Iraqi govt's resource allocation choices that are killing Iraqis.

they spend all their money on guns, so there's very little left over for butter or band-aids.
posted by justkurt at 9:38 PM on September 16, 2001

Reindeer:
By all means keep standing naked in your garden. It's no doubt a sight too enticing for any world leader to refuse.

In the meantime, though, do try to address your comments to us lowly parsley shrubs and common, disgruntled turnips, as this is all we have available for now.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:39 PM on September 16, 2001

Demonizing the enemy is a great way to get *started* on your career as a dictator-for-life. But if you think that Saddam has been spending all this time throwing darts at pictures of the President instead of building a power infrastructure around himself, then you've been breathing the Happy Air a little too long.
posted by darukaru at 9:42 PM on September 16, 2001

Ummm...don't know if this has been flagged yet, but it might be helpful to remember that the sanctions are UN.... not simply US.
posted by Danielle_T at 9:49 PM on September 16, 2001

according to william o. beeman, "The State Department has theorized that if the people of a rogue nation experience enough suffering, they will overthrow their rulers, or compel them to adopt more sensible behavior."

maybe it's time to rethink this policy?
posted by kliuless at 9:51 PM on September 16, 2001

I honestly think, hincandenza, that you atheists would make the best arbitrators. You guys truly regard everyone as equally -MiguelCardoso


I don't wanna be one of those whiny MeFi natives who bemoans newbies, but really: it might not have been the worst idea in the world to freeze new members for a couple of weeks. Some of them, a few, have made valuable contributions. But I'm seeing a lot of these troll-y type postings, and I'm unsurprised when I mouseover the name and see a userID in the 11,000 range.- hincandenza

Gee Miguel..... methinks you might have spoken a little too soon about those atheists truly regarding everyone equally.
posted by Danielle_T at 9:55 PM on September 16, 2001

Hmm...I wonder what they're asking for it? Wouldn't THAT put a twist in bin Laden's knickers....
There's an awesome Straight Dope column that considers whether it would have been more cost-effective to bribe Vietnam instead of attacking it. (Note that I do not necessarily endorse any of the views presented in this article) Afghanistan could probably be bought outright instead of bribed; it's a fixer-upper.
posted by boaz at 10:25 PM on September 16, 2001

Ummm...don't know if this has been flagged yet, but it might be helpful to remember that the sanctions are UN.... not simply US.

Lifting the sanctions requires a vote of the UN Security Council, which has a fairly complicated voting structure. The important part is that the 5 permanent members are allowed an absolute veto of any measure being voted on. Since both the US and UK are permanent members, they have been able to block lifting the sanctions over the objections of the other members.

Gee Miguel..... methinks you might have spoken a little too soon about those atheists truly regarding everyone equally.

Two trolls do not make a right.
posted by boaz at 10:43 PM on September 16, 2001

boaz:
If we do invade Afganistan, a possible way to avoid a repeat of Soviet-style 1980's disaster would be to build an infrastructure and economy in the wake of advancing US troops, in an attempt to win loyalists. This would in no way guarantee success, and it would have to be done in the face of low-level sabotage behind our lines that would likely kill many US soldiers, in addition to the normal battles. It would also require enormous expendatures on top of the defence budget, and could be difficult to support at home if the public is out for vengance.

The other primary alternative is to invade, declare victory, and leave. This could probably be done with a few tens of thousands of US casualties, but would have practically no lasting effect on the country.

Bombing would do nothing more than shatter some rocks.

I won't even address the potential domestic problems an invasion could cause for other Islamic countries in the region.
posted by sigsegv at 10:58 PM on September 16, 2001

Just for the record, that's not in the Bible, it's 100% man-made.

As opposed to...um...?

Yeah, my point exactly. %)
posted by kindall at 11:15 PM on September 16, 2001

sigsegv: Agreed. Sadly, while I have been entertaining the idea, I don't think infrastructure-building will accomplish anything more than making some of the future rubble imported. Keep in mind that these people have been beating each other up over this rubble for 10 years now without any aid from the US or Russia, and that many of them would take a Taco Bell in Kabul as a challenge rather than a blessing.
My guess is that the real sequence (assuming the Taliban doesn't just cave) will be invade, grab some terrorists, declare victory and leave. I would be very surprised if we experienced 10,000+ casualties with such a small mission statement. We've pretty much perfected the 'use air power to destroy every vehicle bigger than a yugo then run down the stragglers with the cavalry' style of warcraft.
posted by boaz at 11:42 PM on September 16, 2001

"My guess is that the real sequence (assuming the Taliban doesn't just cave) will be invade, grab some terrorists, declare victory and leave. I would be very surprised if we experienced 10,000+ casualties with such a small mission statement. We've pretty much perfected the 'use air power to destroy every vehicle bigger than a yugo then run down the stragglers with the cavalry' style of warcraft."

It really depends on how limited the 'invasion' is. I would point out that the terrain in northern Afganistan is so jagged and difficult that 'the cavalry' (ie. tanks) will have a difficult time moving around. I can't claim to be a military expert, but I believe that to hold territory in the north, we will need to use dismounted infantry on a large scale, unlike the Iraq war. Looking at a map, it would appear that we have to come in from the North through Tajikistan/Uzbekistan with Russian support. The only alternatives are Iran (impossible) and Pakistan (extremely unlikely).

If we simply do commando raids using helicopters to land special forces and remove them, then this could be avoided. If we do this, we should not pretend that we are accomplishing anything other than domestic appeasement.

For this reason, I believe any action that would qualify as a real invasion would cost at least 10,000 lives. I hope that I'm wrong, and it is true that the Northern Alliance would probably help us and take some of the casuallties, but if we are serious about an invasion we should realize that this is different than flat-land tank warfare where our technology gives us such a huge advantage.

I'm sure the Russians will remind us of this.
posted by sigsegv at 12:49 AM on September 17, 2001

It is a kind of horror-ometer. So "Western Sanctions" (1.5 million dead Iraqis) equates to being a bit more horrible than "Mexican revolution" and a bit less horrible than "Khmer Rouge".
posted by RichLyon at 2:00 PM on September 17, 2001

(Guys - could you take your conversation on how to manage users, as fascinating as it is, over to the Metatalk area. Thanks.)
posted by RichLyon at 2:06 PM on September 17, 2001