Today the coverage is wall to wall. I wish I hadn't seen it. If the object of such obscene atrocities is to make one sit up and take notice, my question is, just what are we sitting up and taking notice OF? How powerful you are? How RIGHT you are? The victims are just innocent people, held to their birthright, same as you. Once again, you have our attention. Say something, cowards. I heard today it was suicide bombers, they think. Good. Two less. I am as bitter as I sound.

Now they feel that Al Qaeda was behind this bombing.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/14/bali.alqaeda/index.html

Terrorism is an international plague.

lefois,

I'm glad the story is finally being given a considerable amount air time on that side of the world, but it angers me greatly that it took so long. If the numbers of killed/missing/injured are accurate, then the impact of the attack in Bali on Australians will be of the same magnitude as the terrorist attack in New York to Americans.

So why did it take 2 days before we saw the 'leader of the free world' declaring his outrage in front of a televison camera? Surely it couldn't be because the deaths of 200 people from a country with a population of 19 million are any less important than the death of 2,500 people from a country with a population of almost 290 million.

The latest news reports here:
It's been confirmed that 33 Britons died, 13 Indonesians and five nationals from both Singapore and France died, the United States and Sweden both have two confirmed deaths, and New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, Ecuador, South Korea and Switzerland each lost one citizen in the attack.

30 Australians have been confirmed dead.
196 injured Australians have been evacuated, 16 in a critical condition.
150 Australians remain unaccounted for.

SecretSquirrel, the story was reported here all along--it was reported as soon as the bombing occurred. I don't think we had many reporters in Bali at the time of the bombing, so, at first, the story was covered by reporters who were stationed in the Philippines.

This bombing certainly constituted a great tragedy for Australia, but it was not the equivalent of 9/11 and I do not even think such a comparison should be made. 9/11 was an attack on the U.S.--on our homeland, our government, our economy, and our people. Australia--as a country-- was not attacked by this bombing, although innocent, vacationing Australians were murdered in this attack.
If you want to make comparisons, I think this incident is more like the bombings which occur in Israel (a country, like Bali, which depends on tourism). Those attacks have targeted discos, pizza places, a university, etc.--places where tourists and visitors are also found.

I do believe that President Bush expressed his sympathies immediately. As far as outrage goes--he is already waging a war on terrorism. Perhaps people believed that the war on terrorism was only in the interests of the United States. Some people even thought the U.S. deserved what it got on 9/11. Now, perhaps as a result of the bombing in Bali, more people may clearly understand terrorism as a profound international problem and threat.
It has nothing to do with which lives are more important. That's just ridiculous. Of course the president of the U.S. will be more concerned about the loss of American lives as the result of an attack upon our country. And the Australian PM will react more strongly to the loss of Australian lives in this latest bombing. These people do represent national interests and concerns. That does not mean they are callous regarding the suffering and deaths which occur elsewhere.

This latest incident is a terrible tragedy. It is a tragedy whenever innocent people are murdered by terrorist fanatics anywhere in the world.

I do not think we should get into competitive nonsense about which people suffer more when these events occur. All people suffer--either directly, or out of empathy and compassion with the victims and their families.
Similarly, the question of media coverage should not be another competitive issue. The American media covered this bombing thoroughly--and covered it from the beginning.

A country of over 250 million people produces a lot of domestic news daily and that's got to be reported too. At the moment the possibility of war with Iraq is a big issue here. And the sniper stalking people in the Washington, D.C. area is another major concern. Obviously, those stories will receive more coverage here, not because America is unconcerned about what goes on elsewhere, but because these stories are more immediately affecting American lives.

Let's stop being so competitive and snide toward each other's countries.

Tragedy is not something we should be competitive about.

I knew my comments would inspire this response from you chelseabelle. I also think a discussion of this nature is probably better suited to another area, so I will make this my last on here, and try to keep it brief.

You said: "I don't think we had many reporters in Bali at the time of the bombing, so, at first, the story was covered by reporters who were stationed in the Philippines."
What is your point here? Are American TV stations only capable of showing reports from American news reporters? As lefois pointed out, it's "strange how, in this world of instant communication, there wasn't much of a stir on this side of the pond." I suspect that the comments by Ozzz2002 and Copago are closer to the truth.

You said: "This bombing certainly constituted a great tragedy for Australia, but it was not the equivalent of 9/11.."
Do the math, chelseabelle ... the impact this has had our population IS of the same magnitude as 9/11 was to the American population.

You said: "I do believe that President Bush expressed his sympathies immediately."
It was almost 24 hours before Bush released a written statement to the world, and a further 24 hours before he fronted the worlds media in person. His delay is yet another example of why almost 70% of Australians are opposed to us having any involvement in the U.S. lead attack on Iraq.

You said: "Of course the president of the U.S. will be more concerned about the loss of American lives as the result of an attack upon our country. And the Australian PM will react more strongly to the loss of Australian lives in this latest bombing."
You obviously don't know too many Aussies. Most of us don't have a sliding scale used gauge "how strongly we should react" to the death of so many people. I don't see too many differences in the way that our primeminister has reacted to the situation in Bali and the situation in New York.

You said: "A country of over 250 million people produces a lot of domestic news daily and that's got to be reported too."
Your country's population is 289 million, and of course domestic news needs to be reported, but when domestic news takes precident over such a tragedy elsewhere in the world, you shouldn't be surprised when people from other countries tell you Americans are a self-centered bunch.

As horrified as all Australians were over the September 11 attacks this bombing in Bali, perhaps, has let us identify more strongly with the US over that day which, I believe is where the comparisons come in. I also think that what made the rest of the world stand up was when it was reported that Al Qeada was most likely responsible (or affiliated with the group who did it).

Australians have a funny attitude about themselves in the world light. We do get taken aback when the rest of the world doesn't know what is going on here, the name of our Prime Minister and so on when it is seen that we (think) we know what is happening in the rest of the world. But we do it ourselves to other countries ... often a small plane crash in which 5 people are injured in the US (for example), takes precedence over hundreds of people getting drowned in a flood in Bangladesh. It is more the commercial channels that would do that, the two other free to air stations have a much more balanced view on world events.

SecretSquirrel, your basic premise, that the U.S. media coverage of the bombing in Bali, was somehow "late" or incomplete is just untrue. The coverage was quite complete and it started immediately.
TV coverage certainly included videos of the devastation and the bodies, as well as footage of victims in the hospital. Newspaper coverage I read also focused on the direct personal impact of the tragedy to families--how many mothers and fathers and children were lost, the people who were frantic trying to get news of a loved one, and the difficulty of trying to identify or even find the bodies. And all media began focusing on who might be responsible.
The coverage was quite similar to that which was done here when the federal building in Oklahoma was bombed, killing 168 people.
Other than the human toll, and the grief and suffering that remains with survivors and those the dead left behind, there is generally not much else to report on with a terrorist bombing such as the one in Bali--or the one in Oklahoma City. The story is the bombing itself. The grief is the aftermath of the story. The news focus shifts to who did it, and why.

The bombing in Bali is not the equivalent of 9/11, not in any way. The significance of 9/11 was not just in the numbers of people killed, but in the fact that 4 American commercial planes were hijacked and 3 of them were used as weapons of mass destruction in a direct attack upon my country and our government. It was an act of war on my entire country. It stopped all air traffic in this country. It closed our stock exchange. Our Vice President went into hiding in a secret location in order to insure the continuity of our government.
If you think it's all about body counts you do not understand what happened here on 9/11. And if you don't think that President Bush has expressed outrage regarding terrorism, you haven't listened to the man for the past year.

What happened in Bali was just another in a series of terrorist attacks by extremist groups. It may, understandably, seem more important to you because this time so many Australians were killed. But it is really just another vile attack apparently by the same extremist group, or one related to it. You may think that Americans are off in their own little world, but Americans, certainly for the past year, have been well aware that we are engaged in an international war on terrorism, with particular focus on Al Qaeda as the enemy. Perhaps Australians can now better understand that it is not just an American war that is being fought and it is not just American interests which are the targets. Terrorism affects all of us. The bombing in Bali is connected to 9/11 only through the link with Al Qaeda. And stopping Al Qaeda and related extremist groups must be done internationally and it must be a priority.

Do I care that so many people were killed and injured in Bali? Of course I do. Is it an important news story here? Of course it's been an important story--and if you had been reading the New York Times, as I do, you would have been aware of the coverage here. And the coverage here is international--it is not just American based.

Honestly, I do not form my opinions about the effectiveness or scope of American media coverage by reading a few comments at FunTrivia. I suggest that you base your opinions about what the American media is doing on a wider base of resources as well.

And I think this Forum is well suited to this particular discussion. If people are going to draw all sorts of nationalistic inferences based on this news story, then this is the place to discuss those issues.


And I never realized that our president was held to such a strict timetable in terms of his responses. When did you decide just how long you give Bush to respond on certain issues/events? Have you informed him of your "acceptable" time limits? Do Bush's expressions of either condolence or outrage really matter that much to you? Are they so vital to you that you must hear them immediately?

It is just absurd to assume that the president must put aside all other duties and obligations and pending issues, so that he can make an immediate statement of condolence or outrage within minutes of a terrorist attack. Who even times such things? Aren't security and intelligence briefings a higher priority for the president after such a terrorist attack?
It is also absurd to assume that American media will stop reporting on other stories so that they can provide exclusive coverage of one particular terrorist attack in Bali--particularly at a time when the Washington D.C. area is being terrorized by a sniper and there is a national debate about whether to hand Bush full military power to wage any sort of war he wishes in the Middle East. The bombing in Bali was fully covered here, but it probably did not dominate the media in the same way it probably did in Australia. I wouldn't expect that it would. I would think that the degree of mourning and grief would be far far higher in Australia than here, no matter how much media coverage was given in the U.S. The bombing had a much greater emotional impact in Australia, and more direct personal effects in Australia, and news coverage is going to reflect that.

As I said before, what happened in Bali was a terrible, terrible tragedy. But it is also just another in an ongoing series of such tragedies. We cannot bring back the dead. But we must stop these extremists from continuing their terrorist tactics. That is the lesson to be learned from what happened in Bali.

Instead of being angry at America and it's media and it's president, and it's people, why not turn your anger on the people responsible for this horrible crime. That's where it belongs.

And these groups are becoming more active--and the Bali bombing was an example of that-- and the latest news suggests a high degree of continuing threat:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/intelligence.inquiry/index.html

Kuu, you said:

"A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack. That is what the attack on the WTC was, and the attack in the Bali. The only thing that sets the WTC attack apart from the attack in Bali is the number of bombings."

I can agree that "a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack", but I do not not agree that, "The only thing that sets the WTC attack apart from the attack in Bali is the number of bombings."

Australian tourists were killed because they happened to be at a resort spot outside of their own country. Australia, as a country was not attacked. That's one difference between 9/11 and this latest incident in Bali in terms of the relative effects on America and Australia.
It was not just the WTC that was attacked on 9/11. The Pentagon was attacked, and that made it a direct act of war on my government, on our own soil, by a foreign group. That is also what distinguishes 9/11 from the usual terrorist attacks that occur in Israel, very recently in the Philippines, and the one in Bali--which tend to be directed only at civilians.

I think that all terrorist attacks can be considered acts of war as well as criminal actions. And, to some extent, the dividing line between whether the attack is regarded as an act of war or is seen as criminal behavior, is the scope and nature of the attack. The people (members of Al Qaeda) who were involved in the 1993 bombing of the WTC and the bombing of our embassies in Africa were regarded as criminals and tried in our criminal courts. Because of the scope of the 9/11 attack, and the fact that it targeted our government on our own shores, the response was military (toward Al Qaeda as a group) and our president was given full military powers to wage a war to defend the security of the United States.
Is Australia formally at war right now? The United States is. Israel is too--they do regard the terrorist bombings in their country as acts of war which is why they do respond with military action. Is Australia sending troops into Bali?

Significant loss of life is always painful whether the deaths occur as the result of a plane crash, or an act of nature, or a terrorist attack. I am not disputing the emotional impact of the Bali bombing on the people of Australia, nor am I disputing the sense of shock and horror that they feel. I am only saying that the comparison to 9/11 is inappropriate because of substantial differences between the events.

What happened in Bali is the same as what keeps occurring in Israel and what has gone on in the Philippines in the past few days. That's precisely my point. The problem is with terrorist groups and terrorist tactics no matter where they occur and which people they affect. It is terrorism which is the problem--not how much media attention these attacks receive or how the media in different countries cover these events.

It seems to me that the entire concern about media coverage of the Bali bombing is irrelevant. For one thing the event was fully covered in the American media. I can't see that any more coverage could have been done. And, for another thing, what difference should it make how much media coverage was given in the United States? Do you think that after 9/11 I was the least little bit interested in how much coverage was being given to the event elsewhere in the world? I was primarily interested in trying to follow what was going on here--because my personal security was at stake--how the story was being covered by media elsewhere really didn't matter to me.

The point of coverage is to report the news. A bombing occurred in Bali. That was news. Who did it is news. Whether intelligence agencies and governments should have warned tourists is news. Who died and who was injured is news. The aftermath of the bombing in Bali is news. All of those things were fully covered on U.S. media--what do people think was omitted from American coverage?

I suspect that the resort in Bali was targeted because many Australians were there and Australians are considered Westerners by the people who were responsible for the attack. But the attack occurred in Bali and not in Australia. Australians may have been targeted because of their presence in a different cultural region. American tourists are equally vulnerable in certain parts of the world.

Do not doubt for a second that any American does not understand what it's like to be the target of a terrorist attack. Do not think that Americans cannot understand the grief and suffering that follows from such an attack. Do not think that we cannot empathize with those who are grieving right now in Australia--we know first hand what that grief is like and we understand the anger and the outrage that goes along with it.
And the next time you hear about a terrorist bombing in Israel, or any other part of the world, you may have even more empathy for the victims and their families than you had before too, because you will understand the horror of terrorism on a more personal level.

The enemy is terrorism. It is our common enemy.

Kuu also said:

"Wasn't what happened in Bali an attack on Indonesia as much as 9/11 was an attack on America? "

I think that what happened in Bali has certainly affected the way Indonesia perceives terrorism and how they will deal with terrorist groups in the future. They are already changing their laws in accord with this altered perspective.

I would like to ask everyone, but particularly the Australians who are posting here, whether the bombing in Bali has altered your perspective about how terrorists should be dealt with and punished.

The U.S. is widely criticized by other countries for retaining the federal death penalty.

But Indonesia, in response to this bombing, might give the death penalty to those responsible for this attack if they can be found.

How do you feel about that?

Would you want to see those responsible for this bombing receive the death penalty? Would you oppose that punishment?

How would you like to see these terrorist/murderers punished?

Chelseabelle,

In reply to:

---

SecretSquirrel, your basic premise, that the U.S. media coverage of the bombing in Bali, was somehow "late" or incomplete is just untrue.

---

I think your view of the American media coverage is a pretty biased one. On the 13th of October SecretSquirrel made a post regarding the link to Al Qaeda, and provided the URL to the Australian news site which covered the story. Two days later, you made the following post: “Now they feel that Al Qaeda was behind this bombing.” And you gave the URL for the American news site. At the risk of sounding equally as patronising as you in your reply to SS, I would suggest that you take some of your own advice and base your opinion of the American media on a wider base of resources.

In reply to:

---

The bombing in Bali is not the equivalent of 9/11, not in any way.

---

I completely agree with SS’s comment concerning the impact that the bombing in Bali has had on our country. If you check the figures I think you will find that the percentage of lives lost is in fact very similar to the percentage of American lives lost in the events of 9/11. At no time did SS (or anyone else) make a comparison between the circumstances surrounding the two events, and I fail to see how you could have misinterpreted the comments.

In reply to:

---

And I never realized that our president was held to such a strict timetable in terms of his responses. When did you decide just how long you give Bush to respond on certain issues/events? Have you informed him of your "acceptable" time limits? Do Bush's expressions of either condolence or outrage really matter that much to you? Are they so vital to you that you must hear them immediately?

---

The people of Australia were not expecting to hear from Bush in his capacity as the president of the U.S. but in his capacity as the leader of the Western World. So to answer your question, yes, we did expect to see him on our television screens when news of the bombing first broke. What is an acceptable time limit? What would the acceptable time limit be had this attack occurred in a popular American holiday destination, and had killed the same percentage of Americans?
Do his expressions of condolence or outrage really matter to us? Of course they do! How can Bush possibly expect to gain the support of the Australian people and their government in his war on terror by delaying a public address to the world on this matter?

In reply to:

---

I would like to ask everyone, but particularly the Australians who are posting here, whether the bombing in Bali has altered your perspective about how terrorists should be dealt with and punished.
The U.S. is widely criticized by other countries for retaining the federal death penalty.
But Indonesia, in response to this bombing, might give the death penalty to those responsible for this attack if they can be found.
How do you feel about that?
Would you want to see those responsible for this bombing receive the death penalty? Would you oppose that punishment?
How would you like to see these terrorist/murderers punished?

---

My perspective has not been changed at all. I think the death penalty is nothing more than a barbaric act, carried out by people who are nothing short of being murders themselves. Thankfully, our country has come a long way since the days when an eye for an eye was viewed as justifiable punishment for a crime.

I think that when they are tried and found to be guilty, they should be locked up for life, with no chance of parole, no privileges, and no communications with anyone outside of the prison.

This is an excerpt from a story that appeared in a Sydney newspaper today.

In reply to:

---

In a chilling development, The Daily Telegraph can reveal that bin Laden issued a death threat against Australians in the months after the September 11 attacks – because Australia helped East Timor win independence from Indonesia.

"The crusader Australian forces were on Indonesian shores . . . and they landed on East Timor which is part of the Islamic world," bin Laden said in a video.

On Lombok – a 30-minute flight from Bali or four hours by ferry – bin Laden admirers have been taunting Australian tourists over the Sari Club bombing.

Backpackers leaving the island claim they were taunted as they left the ferry terminal departure point at Lembar.

One Australian woman said she had endured taunts of "Bali barbecue" from youths who flicked lit matches at her.

The woman, who was too scared to be identified, said the abuse was mostly from young men who seemed to be rejoicing in the tragic events.

One shouted: "Bomb at Kuta, ha ha. Another said 'Satay, hey' to me."

In Lombok's capital, Mataram, we met Endo – a journalist with The Lombok Post. He was proudly wearing a flowing black Osama bin Laden T-shirt.

"Who do you think did the bombing," he whispered mysteriously before leaving when we asked to photograph him.

Near the Al Akbar mosque in the central city of Masbajik, Ronul Azimun is happy to show off the bin Laden picture in his bedroom.

"He is good. He gives money to Muslims. He makes more people become Muslim," Mr Azimun said."

---

Do we still think that it was just a tragic coincidence that the nightclub favoured by Australian's was bombed?

If this is true it is very sad. Welcome, Misbehaving, by the way. I see this is your second post. You are among friends here. Thank you for sharing the local information in your news sources. We do quite a bit of that at FT. ~Lea