Significance of the Elephant

I think that the elephant is an extremely important symbol in this book.  There are many similarities between the elephant and Oskar, such as having an incredibly strong memory creating an inability to forget.  They also both seemingly have the inability to cry.  Where elephants are suspected to be physically unable, Oskar simply chooses not to.

The elephant is first discussed by Oskar and Abby Black in the chapter The Only Animal.  Oskar sees a picture of an elephant's eye on Abby's apartment wall, and tells her that he loves it, but clarifies to the reader that he wasn't just saying this because he wanted her to like him.  I think he makes this clarification because he wants the reader to realize that he felt a real significant connection to the picture.

In a way, I think that Oskar can really relate to the elephant.  He explains that elephants have memories much stronger than humans, which I suspect is where the phrase "elephants never forget" comes from.  The theme of "never forget" not only applies to Oskar's struggles with his fathers passing, but also was and is the theme for the 9/11 memorial campaign.  When explaining that elephants have strong memories, Oskar talks about the scientist who is doing research on elephants by playing recorded "calls" from other elephants, to see how they react.  He talks about how the scientist would play the calls of a dead loved one, and the elephants would remember.  I thought that this was significant because of the way Oskar is so attached to the recordings left by his dead father.  I also found it important that Oskar could not remember how the elephants reacted.  In my mind this is because Oskar does not quite know how he is handling the passing of his father.

Although he doesn't remember how the elephants reacted, he knows that they didn't cry.  Oskar doesn't see real emotion as an option.  He would symbolize his emotions with phrases such as "heavy boots."  When Abby argues that the elephant is crying, Oskar dismisses it by saying that the photo was "manipulated in Photoshop", but he takes a photo of it just in case.  I think that this is representative of Oskar's inner battle, of whether or not he can show emotion.  He dismisses the idea that elephants can cry, because he wants not crying to seem justifiable, but he takes a picture of the crying elephant, because he wants crying to be an option for him in the future.

I think that Oskar feels that he and the elephant have a mutual understanding, and in a way, Oskar feels sympathy for the elephant.  Oskar knows what it is like to have the blessing of strong memory, but also the curse of not being able to forget.

How to Deal With Mourning

Grief is something everyone has to deal with at one point in their life. With the passing away of my Uncle last semester it is easily noticeable that it plays a role in other people in the family in different ways. It not only affects the entire family to some point but when is it a little too far or a little scary how hard it hits someone. There are several things that play a role on how an individual mourns. These will be listed in no particular order. First, it mostly depends on the type of personality one has. Another one is your gender. And a third one all depends on your age/role in the family. When one experiences death and mourns over a person’s death, there are mainly 3 types of mourning patterns. Instrumental mourners are people who speak about the grief they are feeling. Intuitive mourners are the ones who touch upon every bit of emotions that there is. These people are the ones that seem to be the most hit because they cannot hold back their emotions like other people. Another one is dissonant mourners. These people are most of the times the Dads in the family because they struggle with how they should handle it. They hold in their emotions and don’t know how to express it. They do this most of the time to seem strong. A lot of the times, this comes down to stereotypes that we set up for our society. The men hold in their emotions because it is said that real men don’t cry. There is so much on this website (http://www.griefhealing.com/column-different-grief-patterns.htm) that helps us see how others should handle with mourning. If the person is an adult or our person is a child like Oskar. This website states something that makes me feel as if it relates to Oskar on such an understanding of what he is trying to do. “Children and adolescents may be reluctant to express their thoughts and feelings verbally. Encourage them to express their grief and preserve their memories in a variety of ways, including art, music, journal writing, story-telling and picture collecting”. This is him trying to preserve his memory through the game he played with his dad and the key. It’s just something that takes their mind off of the troubles and burdens. Something that makes him relaxes.

Distracions

It seems to me that a common device for Oskar and Thomas in Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is distraction. They are all trying to distract themselves from the harsh realities they are facing. Oskar tries to distract himself from the fact that his dad died with his mission of finding the lock to the key he has. It almost seems as if he is using random facts and leads to find this key (ie. Finding people whose last names' are Black merely because it said it on the letter.) One of the people that Oskar visited pointed out the semi-insanity of his mission. Oskar said:

"I found a key...and it was in an envelope with your name on it."
"Aaron Black?"
"No, just Black."
"It's a common name."
"I know."
"And a color."
"Obviously."

This just supports the fact that Oskar is just choosing to distract himself by going on a mission to find an imaginary lock that was related to his father. He also tries to make shallow relationships with the people he meets. This is shown in the scene when he has conversation and a cup of coffee with Abbey Black.

Somewhat similarly, Thomas cannot live his life normally ever since his girlfriend died. So when he met Oskar's grandma he could distract himself from the reality for a while. When they first met he described how originally she posed for him and he sculpted her as art. Eventually she caught on.

"He was sculpting me. He was trying to make me so he could fall in love with me."

Thomas wanted to fall in love so that he could be distracted. We are never really sure that it is ever a genuine love. They both get married and create a world of rules for themselves. It is rather insane-like. They seem distant from each other. Right before he decides to leave her we can see his shallowness. He says,

"I knew I was about to destroy what she'd been able to rebuild, but I had only one life to live."

Did he ever really love her or was she just merely another distraction and source of pleasure in his life?

Oskar's Freakout

In response to Mike's post, I thought it might be helpful to understand the five stages of grief. According to the Kubler-Ross model, introduced in the book "On Death and Dying," the five stages of grief are:

1. Denial--"I feel fine," or "This can't be happening"

2. Anger--"Why me?" or "It's not fair!"

3. Bargaining--"I'll do anything for a few more years!"

4. Depression--"I'm so sad" or "Why bother with anything?"

5. Acceptance--"It's going to be okay."

While we're still watching the story unfold, I think we can gather a lot of information about the characters from this model. I think, most importantly, we can understand a lot about Oskar by measuring his progress throughout these stages.

I recently read one of my favorite scenes in the book, one which, in my opinion, exemplifies Oskar's progress in his stages of grief. The scene comes from the chapter, "Heavier Boots," when Oskar recounts a scene he imagines happening during his play. The excerpt reads:

[I pull the skull off my head. Even though it's made of papier-mache it's really hard. I smash it against JIMMY SNYDER's head, and I smash it again. He falls to the ground, because he is unconscious, and I can't believe how strong I actually am. I smash his head again with all my force and blood starts to come out of his nose and ears. But I still don't feel any sympathy for him. I want him to bleed, because he deserves it. And nothing else makes any sense. DAD doesn't make sense. MOM doesn't make sense. THE AUDIENCE doesn't make sense. The folding chairs and fog-machine fog don't make sense. Shakespeare doesn't make sense. The stars that I know are on the other side of the gym ceiling don't make sense. The only thing that makes any sense right then is my smashing JIMMY SNYDER's face. His blood. I knock a bunch of his teeth into his mouth, and I think they go down his throat. There is blood everywhere, covering everything. I keep smashing the skull against his skull, which is also RON's skull (for letting MOM get on with life) and MOM's skull (for getting on with life) and DAD's skull (for dying) and GRANDMA's skull (for embarrassing me so much) and DR. FEIN's skull (for asking me if any good could come out of DAD's death) and the skulls of everyone else I know. THE AUDIENCE is applauding, all of them, because I am making so much sense. They are giving me a standing ovation as I hit him again and again...]

The reason why I enjoy this scene so much is because I feel like the emotion seems very real. I don't feel like Oskar's feelings seem manufactured by a writer, but I do feel like his thoughts reflect the ideas of a grieving child.

With that being said, I think that Foer captures Oskar in a couple stages of grief. First, I feel like Oskar shows signs of still facing denial. The fact that he includes his father as an actor in the play says, to me, that he still considers him as an integral part of his life, with equal significance to someone living. Additionally, Oskar obviously faces anger in this stage, as he reacts very violently in response to nearly no provocation. He outlines his anger to the reader:he's mad at Ron, his mother, his father--most interestingly--, his grandmother, and his therapist. And for Oskar, all of his anger makes sense.

I'm curious to see Oskar's healing process unfold throughout the story; I want to observe closely to see if and how he follows the stages of grief.

Adrienne Rich 1929-2012 RIP

Poetry is Dr. Metres' metier, but I didn't want to let Adrienne Rich's passing go without comment.  If you don't know her work, spend a little time searching out her poems on the web.  Here is one that is worth pondering in relation to our class.

Personal Mourning

Since the novel Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is being used in class to highlight the ways that people deal with personal grief, I thought it might be helpful to point out the ways various characters are grieving in the novel. The two most obvious grievers in the novel thus far are the two narrators of the first three chapters. The first narrator, Oskar, is dealing with his grief primarily by trying to hold onto his dad’s memory, but also in trying to replace him. Oskar mentions that he wanted to give the Morse code jewelry (which he ended up giving his mother) to the man at the French embassy, or a person in a wheelchair, among others. However, while Oskar tries to connect more with some people, he shies away from others. He doesn’t like Ron very much, for obvious reasons, but he also starts to lie to his mother in order to pursue his dad’s key.
The second narrator we have been introduced to, Thomas, is mourning the loss of Anna. While Oskar’s mourning brings him into contact with more and more people (the Blacks as well as the woman in the art supply shop), Thomas is “losing words”, and eventually comes to the point where he cannot speak. While Oskar is being more social, Thomas is shutting himself off from the world.
Those aren’t the only grievers in the novel, however. Oskar’s mom and grandma also mourn the loss of Oskar’s father in distinct ways. Oskar’s grandma seems to be clinging to Oskar more and more. In the limousine, for instance, she is becoming so attached that Oskar feels the need to climb in the front seat with the driver. Oskar’s mom, on the other hand, exhibits a bit of contradiction. On the one hand, she is shown squeezing her hands in the limousine, apparently out of anguish. On the other hand, she seems to be moving on at home, still playing board games and laughing and being around Ron, her “friend”. Although this is a bit of a simplification of the different ways of grieving in the novel, I hope its helpful as we learn more and more about these characters.

U.S. Moves to Ease Limits on Use of Data in Counterterror Analysis

U.S. Moves to Ease Limits on Use of Data in Counterterror Analysis

The Obama administration is moving to relax restrictions on how counterterrorism analysts may access, store and search information about Americans gathered by government agencies for purposes other than national security threats. 
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected on Thursday to sign new guidelines for the National Counterterrorism Center, which was created in 2004 to foster intelligence sharing and to serve as a clearinghouse for terrorism threats, according to officials. 
The guidelines will lengthen to five years — from 180 days — the center’s ability to retain private information about Americans when there is suspicion that they are tied to terrorism, intelligence officials said. The guidelines are also expected to result in the center making more copies of entire databases and “data-mining them” — using complex algorithms to search for patterns that could indicate a threat — than it currently does. 
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/politics/us-moves-to-relax-some-restrictions-for-counterterrorism-analysis.html?emc=na

I think this little excerpt of news really says a lot and it definitely relates to what we've been talking about in class. Many people in class expressed fear about the government watching over them, well here you go I suppose. The government has extended the amount of time they can hold your private information when terrorism is suspected. They have eased these restrictions as well to aid in data mining, searching for threats in large data. However, I'm going to make the extremely contentious argument that I'd rather have the government doing these things rather than not searching for terrorists. If there is a slight chance that this data could help prevent a terrorist attack, then I think it's worth it, especially since I don't have anything to hide. In the technologically connected world we live in today it is naive to think that anything you do on the internet is private or safe anyway.

How Far?

How far will the U.S. government try to push their abilities to ignore human rights? From unchecked torture to the desecration of the constitution, The government of our country at this time does not seem to realize or quite frankly does not seem to care what its citizens say as they continue to press on for more lee way to spy on and infiltrate your personal life. The government recently gave itself the ability to police the internet. Add this to the fact that our leaders at this time are placing more regulations and red tape that may or may not be allowed in the constitution and do not seem to have shown any signs of slowing down. What can be done? Do the people need to hold the people in power more responsible? only time will tell.

Is Torture Necessary?

When i read "Mark Danner's article "After September 11: Our State of Exception", i felt a strong sense of anger towards the government/CIA/all involved in torturing an innocent man. I had strong feelings of anger at the fact that they were able to get away with it because of how "high up and spread" the blame was placed. But i began to look at this from multiple angles. Torture is nothing new. It happened in many civilizations throughout history. The question that then came to my mind is, "Would this incident of torturing an innocent man have been scrutinized the same had the man been guilty of the crimes accused?" People are quick to jump and say that torture is wrong, that it goes against humanity, and that it shouldent be practiced, and i agree with this for the most part, but what i notice in myself is that if this man had not been innocent, would i have had the same feelings about the CIA/government? Would i have felt a deep sense of sorrow for the man? I dont think i can say i would. I propose the same questions to the class: "If the man was not innocent, would you have the same feelings about this article? Would you still believe that torture is not justified to be used against a person involved in plotting terrorism? To those who believe torture goes against all that is humanity, how do you propose we treat those found guilty of either plotting terrorism or withholding information that could save the lives of millions?

Big Brother Is Watching You

As I read Danner’s article, “After September 11: Our State of Exception,” I found that many excerpts created an image in my mind of America depicted like George Orwell’s Big Brother character in his famous novel, 1984. I know, I know, as an English major, I’m destined to make a literary connection, but bear with me; I can make this relevant.

I felt most struck by this notion as I read the excerpts from Abu Zubaydah. His descriptions of torture corresponded with the depictions presented in Orwell’s book. For example, Zubaydah’s description—“I woke up naked, strapped to a bed, in a very white room. The room measured 4m x 4m. The room had three solid walls, with the fourth wall consisting of metal bars separating it from a larger room”—sounds strikingly similar to the description provided by Orwell—“He did not know where he was. Presumably he was in the Ministry of Love, but there was no way of making certain. He was in a high-ceilinged windowless cell with walls of glittering white porcelain.” And again, Zubaydah’s account reads: “I was given no solid food during the first two or three weeks,” much like Orwell’s character, who felt, “hungry, with a gnawing, unwholesome kind of hunger. It might be twenty-four hours since he had eaten, it might be thirty-six.” And these similarities only skim the surface. I will refrain from using too much textual evidence from 1984, since I wouldn’t want to ruin the book for anybody that has not read it, but the similarities are obvious and striking.

The reason why I even mention this comparison stems from my initial fears after reading Orwell’s 1984. Any reader that has ever once questioned the intentions of the government could see that the depiction of Big Brother may not be far off from the American government. And, honestly, after reading some of the absurd facts of the article, I came to realize that America truly is a Big Brother to other countries, and needless to say, Big Brother is watching.

When I hear that, “every day the President and other senior officials received the ‘threat matrix,’ a document that could be dozens of pages long listing ‘every threat directed at the United States’ that had been sucked up during the last twenty-four hours by the vast electronic and human vacuum cleaner of information that was US intelligence,” I find it hard not to think that the American government is just as paranoid as the skeptical Big Brother, a metaphorical being who keeps an eye on every citizens in society. Accordingly, these concepts of, “Assume the worst,” and “Act preemptively, aggressively,” and “When in doubt, act,” also draw the same comparison. The government tries so hard to prevent terrorism that they must, at some point, target the wrong person, someone who doesn’t have the information that the government thinks they do, and that person will suffer for something that they didn’t do.

I want to conclude by saying that 1984 always seemed like a conspiracy theory to me. I never thought that the government would be so overbearing, unnecessarily poking into private business in order to protect itself. However, I’m seeing now that it doesn’t matter. If there is suspicion, any suspicion at all, they find it okay to act. And if that’s the case, how far will this go?

Ignorance: Bliss or Problem?

       While reading the selections written by Hayan Charara for this week, it was safe to say I was made quite uncomfortable by the displays of ignorance made in regards to his student Mohammed. It seemed so insensitive that agents of the government would profile someone based on their appearance. Although I’m not so naïve to think that this type of situation had never occurred before, or to anyone else, it is still unsettling to think that someone could be accused of something because they look a certain way. What makes the interchange even worse is that Mohammed was doing something innocuous when he was targeted for questioning. Why wouldn’t it be clear from Mohammed’s notes that he was working on a class assignment? It leads me to believe that the men jumped to conclusions about what Mohammed’s intentions were. That seems incredibly ignorant.
Ignorance, in that situation, was obviously a problem. However, I was thinking about my own reactions to 9/11, and I realized something. I was also incredibly ignorant at the time. I didn’t know what a Muslim was or where any Arab countries were. At the time, I probably couldn’t have even pointed out New York on a map, even though I knew vaguely that it was East of Cleveland. But this ignorance, which I exhibited because I was eight years old at the time, meant that I would have no reason to unjustly target Arab-Americans or Americans who practice Islam. My ignorance, in other words, prevented me from making unfair assumptions about people who may or may not be involved with terrible people. I did not make the mistakes made in the story.
So, my question to the class is this:  can ignorance be a good thing, as in the example I provided, or am I misleading myself to think that ignorance was the cause for my tolerance instead of other factors. Let me know what you think.

why did obama win the Nobel Peace Prize

he was praised for his reduction of tension in the middle east but as of right now things in the middle east are as bad as ever. president obama has alienated the people we have went there to help and since the reception of this award the president increased his military action in the middle east in aiding the the revolts in lybia and egypt. many of the things he won this award for have not been accompanied by matching actions.  the people who supported him did so because middle eastern rulers "know he is somebody different from past leaders who supported Israel economically and militarily." at the time he won he had barely done anything to deserve this sort of praise and his track record shows that he is not shy of military conflict even though he continues to let the military become stagnant because of his lack of winning intensity in military conflict. taking military action without a clear goal and plan is foolish and deteriorating relationships between our only middle eastern ally is equally as foolish

Peace Through Human Nature

In his Nobel Peace Prize speech, President Obama brought up many interesting and good points about the history of violent wars and human kind's effort to bring justice to all nations. This is a noble and fulfilling goal that we all should strive for. He rightly quoted MLK in his Nobel speech when King stated that violence never brings lasting peace, just complicated social problems. Obama made it a point to bring out the strength of mankind in fighting for justice, but also of the perpetual violence that humanity brings to the world stage. He made it clear that evil will always exist and someone will have to use force to stop it. Obama does not see a way out of it. Man will always be violent.

However, one line in his speech rather interested me. This is the part of the speech where he was talking about the efforts of humanity to maintain peace and justice. Obama quoted John Kennedy saying that we need to "focus on a practical, more attainable peace based not on a sudden revolution in human nature, but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." It seems to me that the opposite of this statement would be true. Every time we have problems we look to human institutions to solve our problems. Because institutions are run by humans they are susceptible to corruption no matter what. We are not perfect. Rather a change in the philosophies and ideologies that our human nature's carry would have a much more profound effect on the problems we are facing. I also believe that this perspective is not a impractical and unattainable goal for peace. It will take time, but so will any other solution we come up with. No, it will not solve our problems overnight, but it will be a much better long term solution to the problem of injustice and violence. Institutions are not infallible and will only seek to solve the problems using human means and will inevitably lead us to other problems. However, by no means am I not advocating against human institutions as a whole. There are many organizations that do an incredible amount of good work for justice and peace, but I am saying that it would be better to start working on the nature of our actions and the nature of humanity so that they can have a much more positive impact on our human institutions. This would be a better direction for our president to go.

...Because We Can't Just Torture Anyone

After reading the two essays on torturing terrorists, I wanted to take a step back from the moral and ethical issues—if only momentarily—in order first to outline the basic definitions of a terrorist. I understand all the red tape around torture, and I find it all very fascinating, but before we can decide whether torture should be considered ethical or legal, we should consider who receives the torture.

Both essays discuss acts of torture assigned to terrorists. So, this idea—paired with a brief discussion in class—got me wondering about the ways in which we define a terrorist.

According to Google’s dictionary a terrorist is, “a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.” In order to diversify my post, I want to include another dictionary’s definition; this description comes from Dictionary.com: “a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.”

Perhaps a further definition would aid in finding our so-called terrorists. In order to understand terrorists, one must understand terrorism, which is defined by Google as, “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”

So, in a more fluent way, we can deduce that a terrorist is “a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” I don’t mean to get very finicky with wording and definition, especially because society’s definition speaks a lot louder than the definition of any dictionary. However, torture is an extremely serious topic, and if we ever want to apply it to anybody, we should know exactly to whom it will be applied.

Interestingly, I think that the definition says it all; a terrorist is somebody who uses violence and intimidation, not somebody who will use violence and intimidation. I call this point into attention because I don’t think we can label somebody as a terrorist until they actually commit an act of terrorism. With that being said, we should only, according to Dershowitz as cited in Dr. Lauritzen’s essay, torture a terrorist who is “guilty,” meaning, as far as I take it, that they have already committed the act of terror. However, in the same breath, Dershowitz also comments, according to Dr. Lauritzen, that torture “should not be a means of exacting vengeance.”

My question is as follows: if we should only torture terrorists who are guilty—which means, according to definition, they have already used violence and intimidation, not that they are planning to use it—how is that not seen as an act of vengeance? Would that not mean that we are punishing the guilty? Or am I confusing Dershowitz definition of a guilty terrorist?

And if that’s the case, can we prevent terrorism if a terrorist can only be defined as somebody who has already committed an act of terror?

And further, these questions only apply if we use the dictionary definition of terrorism. Do you think that society defines terrorism in a different way? If so, how do the two definitions differ?

Debating Non-Interventionism in U.S. Foreign Policy: What is America's role in foreign affairs post 9/11?

What role should the military play in advancing the cause of freedom abroad? Which is the greater danger: American retreat from the world, or American overextension?

This is a really interesting topic and something that I think ties in with the discussion of post 9/11 American society.

Full Debate
http://vimeo.com/32018140

Debate Highlights
http://vimeo.com/31979348

I, for one, agree with the idea that it is not always the United States' job to be proactive in their mission to change the global community. In my opinion, there are some instances when America would be better off remaining outsiders from a situation. However, with that being said, the question then remains of when and where America should intervene and become a part of the solution? There is a rather large portion of the country and perhaps even the world that agree the United States needs to play the role of world police in order for injustices around the globe to be controlled.

I was curious as to what people had to say and I found a rather interesting op-ed from 2003. The piece written by Max Boot, the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies. The article was published on the Council for Foreign Relations website and called for America to continue to be a sort of global piece because there was no one else to assume the role. While the UN has a certain amount of power in regards to world affairs, there are limitations. Does it seem feasible that another sort of multinational  organization that would posses the ability to police foreign affairs of other nations? Do you think Max Boot would hold the same views he held in 2003 at this point in 2012?

Here's the link to the article: http://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-politics/americas-destiny-police-world/p5559

When is it appropriate to label an act as "terrorism"?

Before I start my blog, I would like to state that I am by no means pro-9/11!!!

When the attacks of 9/11 happened people were so quick in saying that it was terrorism! We had never really used that term as much before the attacks in 2001. Almost everyone defines it as terrorism because the people who carried out the attacks, the terrorists, were intentionally targetting innocent civilians. Fair enough.
Let us take a look at this.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/congresswoman-shot-by-gunman-in-arizona.html

A gunman shot the Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, allegedly, who in fact is also a civilian, and yet news reports call it a shooting rampage. Why?


Stepping back almost 5 years, Virginia Tech shootings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us/16cnd-shooting.html?pagewanted=all

A shooting rampage again? Although the gunman was targetting students and teachers who were at that point civilians.

Let us go back 3 days.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/opinion/iftikhar-leave-aghanistan/index.html?hpt=us_mid

A US solider, in Afghanistan, decides to go door-to-door and shoot 16 innocent civilians, including 8-9 children, 3 women, and our president says, "I offer my condolences to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives, and to the people of Afghanistan, who have endured too much violence and suffering. This incident is tragic and shocking, and does not represent the exceptional character of our military and the respect that the United States has for the people of Afghanistan."

So, the war, which is technically a "just war" is carried out by targetting innocent children and women?
What was the reasoning for this war, which made it a "just" one? Oh, overthrowing the taliban, which the US did, and capturing Bin-Laden, which also is a done deal. So why are we still there fighting a "just war" by killing people who have no ties to the attacks of 9/11 at all? In the link above it states that because of this just(?) war, 2,000 American troops, and more than 14,000 innocent Afghani civilians have died! How is this just by any means? Why do we not call this act, along with the above two (out of many many others which are too many to list in this blog) acts of terrorism? Just like 9/11, the targets were innocent civilians who were doing nothing but their every day duties of being citizens of this world? What justifies these acts done by us, against our own people and Afghanis, on the other hand what sets 9/11 apart? Is it the fact that these are American citizens we are talking about in the above cases?

The soldier's case get's even more interesting. Days before this incident, Qurans were burned by Americans for some apparent reasons? And yet, today news agencies publish this kinds of articles.

Some "suspect" that alcohol may have played a role in this incident.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/world/afghani-delegation-attacked-at-killing-site/story-e6frg1p3-1226299139385

Soma "suspect" or "are sure" that the soldier suffered from injuries.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/03/14/bad-psychiatric-policy-and-afghan-massacre/

While reading the artciles I came across people commenting things such as, "Muslims deserve this, they did 9/11" and also things like "I think our soldirers are trying to send us a message".

Personally, I agree with the second person. I think the troops overseas are tired of fighting a war that has ended almost a year ago. It is not just anymore.

Interestingly, 2minutes before I posted this blog, The Washington Post published this "article", which is only one line.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-official-solder-accused-of-killing-afghan-civilians-flown-to-kuwait/2012/03/14/gIQAGjtoCS_story.html

Conclusively, I just have one question. What is terrorism? How is it justified? Does it make a difference if it's you who does it, or against you it is done? I do not know the answer to these, but it sure looks like the case in these situations. Either way, it does not seem to matter because our actions are almost always justified, which seems a little ridiculous to me, and yet very sad. After all, we are fighting a just war.

President Obama's Nobel Prize Speech

Here is a video of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech. The first 15 minutes are particularly relevant to our discussion this week.

Devolution of the War on Terror

Today in class, we talked about how the War on Terror has the potential to be, and so far has been, a war with an endless number of goals. We’ve already seen evidence of this—“Mission Accomplished” banners, the killing of Bin Laden—and yet the war continues. And yet when the war began, it seemed more like the goal was clear:  to prevent another attack by stopping the group that was responsible.

                In my opinion, the problem with the War on Terror is pretty simple. In the beginning, the war was based on the U.S. being reactive to 9/11; the point was, in fact, to go after the people responsible for the attacks that had already taken place. The problem occurred when the U.S. leaders and military personnel shifted their focus from being reactive to proactive.

                When a country tries to act proactively, stamping out threats as they arise, the situation quickly devolves into paranoia. As Sontag pointed out, the threat is never-ending. Because of this, the war itself cannot end with satisfying results. Or as was accurately pointed out in class, new threats can be manufactured every day.

                In just war theory, just cause is necessary for a war to be considered just. Whether or not it is just to preemptively kill citizens with suspected links to al-Qaeda is up for debate. But if the United States’ historical record is any indication, preemptive wars very well may continue. The War on Terror is comparable to Cold War containment policy, in that it appears the goal is to rid the world of all anti-U.S. terrorism, for fear that it will have a domino effect. It seems to me that if containment policy was perpetuated relatively undeterred, the War on Terror very well may continue as it has. And that is truly terrifying.

Which Movie Best Illustrates American Motives for the War on Terror: Syriana or United 93?

            As United 93 was coming to a close, and the passengers were attempting to take back control of the plane, I could not help but notice how angry I felt. I wanted revenge. We have discussed Elshtain’s comment about anger being an appropriate response roughly a year after the attacks, but here I am a decade later having that same response conjured back up. I was not expecting to have that kind of reaction, or such a strong reaction, given all that has happened since the planes went down. Do you believe that the U.S. response was emotionally driven? Or was it an economically driven attempt to seek out oil and spread American influence as Syriana might suggest? Does the fact that Iraq was chosen as the target play a role in your answer choice?

Personally, I cannot help but think that emotions played a fairly significant role in the decision to go to war, phantom or not. Something needed to be done, and it needed to be done relatively quickly to show our strength and resolve. At the same time, it is hard to ignore arguments similar to what is depicted in Syriana. But I would hate to think that such a tragic event was simply used as a catalyst to pursue economic endeavors. I can see how the likely answer would be a little bit of both, but if I had to choose I would draw U.S. motives from United 93 before Syriana, even though it may not be correct. 

United 93: Women as Sexual Objects

While I was watching United 93, right toward the beginning, something caught my attention. I remembered from the Al Qaeda Reader how one of the things that was written about the US and western ways was the use of women in media and marketing, essentially using sex to sell things. I cant  seem to find the exact lines that are written but I remember it discussing that as a reason they look down upon America. At 5:12 in the movie we see one of the terrorists walking through the airport carrying his luggage. Behind him you can see two advertisements of what looks to be magazine covers. One is of a girl in either underwear or some skimpy outfit, and the one next to it is of a girl and written next to her it reads "the bust issue". The scene continues as it moves to one of the other terrorists. As hes walking at 5:15, you can see another advertisement of some type behind him on the wall. It features two women shirtless and in their bras. Its hard to tell exactly what the ad is trying to sell, but it definitely is using women and sex appeal to do so. The final thing about this scene that caught my attention (and maybe I'm reading too far into this) is that the camera stops on the ad and the terrorist continues to walk by, as if to emphasis the ad for a moment. It's like it was saying "here, look at this, this is why we hate you". Again, maybe i'm looking too far into this 3-4 second scene but to me it felt almost as if this was filmed intentionally this way to emphasis the fact that our cultures are so drastically different. Without even saying a word, for me,  this small scene summarized that attitudes and feelings of the terrorists and the reasons they carried out their attacks.

United 93: Minor Focus on Terrorist Motives

I’d like to address the representation of the Al-Qaeda terrorists in the movie, United 93.   I found it interesting when I paid attention the way in which the terrorists were portrayed because there was little done to address their motives and such.  Although I realize that the premise of the movie is to depict the events on the actual day of September 11, 2001, I can’t help but wonder if a crucial element was left out.  Because the focus was that specific day, I understand that prior events, such as the thoughts of the terrorists and how they came to be associated with Al-Qaeda, can become less of a priority than if its goal was to truly delve deeply into the history behind the attacks.  However, as one of the only movies that took on that major task of depicting the 9/11 attacks, it would have been beneficial for the movie’s creators to realize the power that was in their hands.  Since the attacks are such a horrifying event in recent American history, many Americans would clearly be interested in seeing the movie.  Therefore, it would have been an important move for the creators to try to explain what motivated the terrorists.  Although such topics aren’t necessarily the most popular among Americans because it’s a (for lack of a better word ) touchy subject, it is important that we understand the terrorists’ side of things to, if only to gain a thorough understanding of that day.  Although I can’t speak for others, I find that some people feel that thinking about the motives means, in some way, accepting the attacks as legitimate; however, I argue that doing so only helps us to understand the attacks, not justify them in any way.  Ultimately, my point is that it would have done the movie justice if its creators had decided to incorporate more background information instead of primarily focusing on the fear and chaos of that fateful day.  While there were moments where the terrorists are looked at in a deeper light—specifically when the fourth terrorist hesitates and is clearly thinking deeply about what he’s going to do—I still feel as though the movie lacked crucial information by choosing to focus on the American side primarily.

United 93: Memories. Unity?

As I watched United 93, I remembered the day that I learned about 9/11.  I was too young to understand what the news were speaking of on the TV, however, what I learned from the visual representations at 6pm on September 11, 2001 was the simple and sad fact that people had lost their lives by planes that made their way into buildings. I remember leaving our living room and looking straight ahead from our kitchen window which faced the only airport in Armenia. It was my habit to stare at the planes at the airport fly and land all day long and be happy that maybe one day I would be lucky enough to fly somewhere in an actual plane. It was a dream for me.  On that day, (I remember it as it was yesterday; I can literally picture the sky that evening any time I think of that horrific day in my head. it was rainy and ugly and gloomy) after looking out the window at the airport ahead I was not happy. I looked ahead for a while and I cried. I did not realize what had happened but I knew I gave up on my dream. Or rather, I was dissappointed and wanted to find another dream to strive for. Today, as I watched this film I cried again. I am not American and I cannot put myself into Americans' shoes and I don't know how I would feel if I were one , but it does not stop me from feeling fear or even anger. Ever since I gave up on my dream I have been scared. When I grew older and learned more about that day, I always asked myself, "What if?". What if those passangers were lucky to take control of the plane? Or, what if our airport security was safer? What if that 4th hijacker changed his mind at the last minute? As I watched the film again, these questions were in my mind and I wanted to picture the outcome of those things! I wanted to know that there would have been some reasons for me to hold on to my dream back then.
This film, although I am not sure how accurate, still demonstrates the events of that day. I really think that by watching this America will stand united more than ever. However, I do think that it is sad to have such events to serve as reasons for unity. [And, I do find it interesting how the people in the film were united and the airline company was "United ..."! ] I do think that this film is very strong. It delivers such an important message that is essential for us, all members of the world community to follow. We need to be united and set aside our differences and hatred. Of course, there will always be people who do not agree or who choose to merge into the wrong lane, however, being united and loving each other is the only way to achieve that what is perpetual. Maybe peace? This film should become an exemplar for each and every one of us to stand together - as those passangers did; to strive for goals that we all have in common and finally, and hopefully, have a peaceful society with no holy wars or wars on terrorism, which maybe can be eliminated through brotherhood and common understanding.

On Syriana

In class, we talked a lot about how father-son/family issues connected the characters of Syriana. Although this is true, we didn’t talk very much about the characters’ moral struggles that unite them.

At the beginning of the movie, all of the characters seem like normal guys facing normal problems. They have jobs, they have families, and they have lives. But once we get deeper into the movie, the characters become more complex. Wasim loses his job. Barnes seems to be on the brink of losing his. Woodman is offered a new job, but loses a son in the process. And Bennett is facing a tough task at work.

As we continue further into the movie, the lives of these men start to develop into focus:  as their situations change, they are all facing new challenges. Wasim struggles with ways of coping with his job loss and his father’s impotence. At first he reacts with frustration, which turns to desperation. Finally, as the movie reaches its climax, he is struggling with the idea of violence. When Wasim’s friend says that the two boys will be able to help their families out after going through with the plans, he seems unsure. Barnes, whose first plan to assassinate Nassir was to put him in a car and stage a car crash, seems more compassionate toward the end of the movie. As the film draws to a close, he is desperately trying to intercept Nassir’s convoy and warn him of his imminent assassination. Woodman struggles throughout the movie with the problem of working for the man his wife perceives as killing their son. However, he also struggles with a subtler problem:  is it amoral to work for a man who is cynical of your home country? And finally, Holiday’s moral struggle is set in the corporate world. He finds it harder and harder throughout the film to keep his nose clean, as his bosses try to convince him to get involved in corporate corruption.

The director of the film had said his intent for the movie was to show how people of different backgrounds, living halfway across the world are all connected. Keeping the characters’ moral struggles and family problems in mind, he seems to have done this. But is the method of connecting the characters in more concrete ways as effective, or does it cause confusion? In other words, was it as easy to keep straight who was trying to kill whom, who was angry with whom, who had ties to what group? In my opinion, the comparisons made through characterization were more effective than those that were revealed through the plot, because the plotline was complex and difficult to follow. Any thoughts?

United 93

One of the questions I want to discuss in class is how flight 93 is represented. When President Bush addressed the nation on September 20, 2001, almost the first thing he mentions is United 93. What President Bush says is not entirely consistent with what the 9/11 Commission Report says. Neither is the film consistent with the 9/11 Report. You might want to read the relevant sections of the 9/11 Report. Below is a link to the report. Read the 15 or so pages that appear under the heading "Inside the Four Flights."

9/11 Commission Report

If the link doesn't work, here is the URL:

 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cts=1330631798634&ved=0CDYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911commission.gov%2Freport%2F911Report.pdf&ei=XspPT8LxO67jsQKgzJSoDg&usg=AFQjCNGd3vLjU60u4BijL17ezTRkJQshnQ