9/11 – Citizen Reporter

Just and UnJust Wars with Stephen Shalom

Mark Fonseca Rendeiro

Stephen R. Shalom

This is what AI thinks this episode was about:
In this episode of Citizen Reporter, host Bicycle Mark engages in a substantial dialogue with Steve Shalom, an emeritus professor known for his deep understanding of moral philosophy, particularly as it pertains to war. As they convene in January 2025, the conversation revolves around the concept of “just wars” and how society defines what constitutes a just versus an unjust conflict. Mark establishes the context by reflecting on the changing landscape of global conflicts and the need to discern moral justifications for wars.

Shalom opens the discussion by providing an overview of just war theory, highlighting the rarity of truly just wars throughout history. He explains the foundational criteria for determining the justice of a war, acknowledging that such determinations hinge on both legal and moral assessments. The dialogue probes the complex relationship between law and morality, drawing parallels to personal moral dilemma.

The conversation then deepens into three general moral approaches to war: realism, pacifism, and just war theory. The realist perspective advocates for doing whatever it takes to win a war, dismissing the notion of moral constraints as unrealistic. In contrast, pacifism rejects war under any circumstances, arguing that it is inherently immoral. Steve identifies just war theory as a middle ground, suggesting that while many wars may be unjust, certain criteria can render a war just based on context. This nuanced view leads to a comprehensive examination of historical and modern conflicts, including the significance of international laws established by entities such as the United Nations, which aim to regulate warfare and promote peace.

Mark and Steve navigate through the evolution of international norms concerning war, noting that while the UN charter ostensibly outlaws aggression, nations frequently disregard these laws. They discuss key historical instances, such as the 1990 Gulf War, where collective self-defense was invoked, and the discrepancies in enforcement regarding international law. They also reflect on the ineffectiveness of the UN Security Council due to veto powers, which complicates any potential interventions.

The notion of competing narratives in any conflict is also addressed. Steve articulates the challenges of discerning the legitimacy of claims to self-defense, especially in contemporary contexts like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They underline that while public opinion may sway narratives, it is ultimately the collective decision-making processes within international bodies that shape the application of just war theory.

As the discussion progresses, Mark draws parallels between historical wars, notably World War II, often cited as a model of just war. They deliberate on the complexities surrounding the justifications of U.S. actions in later conflicts such as Vietnam and Iraq, articulating the moral debates that arise from actions taken under the guise of self-defense or humanitarian intervention. This further leads to an exploration of how the standards of just war have shifted over time, particularly with the increased scrutiny of civilian casualties and ethics in warfare.

The episode concludes with a poignant discussion regarding the psychological impacts of violence and trauma on societies involved in conflict. Steve underscores the cyclical nature of violence and how immediate reactions to trauma can cloud moral judgments, making a case for the long-term consequences of military actions that often go unaddressed in political discourse. Mark reflects on historical media reactions following September 11, 2001, demonstrating how public sentiment can lead to the justification of extreme measures.

Together, Mark and Steve encourage a deeper exploration of just war theory and its relevance in current geopolitical dynamics, advocating for thoughtful consideration of the moral implications of warfare in our increasingly complicated world. They express a commitment to continue these critical conversations as global conflicts evolve, highlighting the importance of dialogue in understanding the ethics of war. (End of AI statatement)

You can also just listen for yourself to figure out if the above summary is accurate.

The Summer of 2001 Through 2024 Ears

Mark Fonseca Rendeiro

Im in the kitchen preparing a meal for the family with just enough time to describe a little radio activity I’ve been working on. It involves listening back to talk radio programs from the end of the summer of 2001 and the leadup to 9/11. Hearing how people spoke and thought back then which is, of course, extremely familiar as I was there and these programs are from my home region. All this through the lens of what we are living through in 2024 and the ways we think and function now. Some people may not want to go back, I find it fascinating to do so.

Cliché Day is Over

I’m relieved that international cliché day has now passed.

I don’t want to hear anymore “I remember where I was when JFK was killed” style stories.

No more using people’s deaths as an excuse to kill.

People who are close to us and people we don’t ever think about are dying everyday, and on most of those occasions… it is also unnecessary.

In previous years I tell stories and record podcasts related to how I remember that day and how our community took action and how things looked from my house.

But I’m tired of the cliché. Especially from the mouth of allegedly qualified political leaders. Tired of pointless war and torture and violence in the name of another cliché.

Even writing these words becomes redundant and fake-sounding. So I’ll stop. I’m just relieved that date has again passed.

I yield my time to the gentleman from the city of Angels.

Loose Change Leave Me Alone

I hate this goddam film.

Loose Change.

“Did you see loose change yet?”

“What about Loose Change bm?”

One more person asks me about Loose Change… I may just snap and commit myself to a Dutch looney bin.

I hate writing off arguements as “conspiracy theories”. I think conspiracies are very important and are often the cause of something, the result of one too many secrets or inconsistancies. So I’m all in favor of investigating them. Plus, I certainly don’t just swallow what the government gives me when it comes to information, so there again, I say question the answers.

But Loose Change is another creature all together. It captivates people somehow. 5 years later and somehow people seem to have just realized that there was something very un-normal and inconsistant about the way the events of that day went down. Loose Change becomes the source of their born-again skepticism. To some extent, as I stated previously, I can understand it.

But what I can’t stand is the out-of-wack priorities. The excessive focus on the film, and the details, to see who has the right film and the right photos to prove or disprove certain stories.

The fact is, regardless if the towers were purposely demolished by some unknown entity, or destroyed by planes as a result of a government that refused to heed warnings or take any extraordinary measures to prevent them, a crime of enormous proportion has still been committed. The net result, when all is said and done, is still criminal. Loose Change can argue all it wants about how it happened and how it didnt happen, but it doesn’t change much when it comes to the end result and who was ultimately responsible for preventing or being prepared for such a situation, and they certainly were not.

Do you follow me here? I’ll try and be more clear, as many have pointed out I was not successful in doing during my last podcast: Myself, I could care less about Loose Change, and the attention it gets bothers me, because I believe it is misplaced attention. A better use of time and energy would be to come up with a strategy for holding the criminally negligent responsible. It concerns me, to some extent, when figuring out conspiracies becomes the primary goal, in place of focusing on how to address the crime.

One might say, well this is only one step, so whats wrong with that. You could argue, it is necessary to first know the truth. Fine points. But what I see thus far, since this film started out last year, is that the public watches it, argues about it, and to this point… nothing comes of it. I may just be getting ahead of myself.. but I can’t take it anymore.. I am absolutely sick of Loose Change.

Listen to the Democracy Now debate which includes the writers and you might notice there is something really wrong with these guys. Besides the holes in their arguments, their refusal to admit the slightest possibility that theyre wrong, and the constant laughing and rediculing their oppenents during the debate, for me.. all signs that these boys are simply not as legitimate as many give them credit for.

bm153 Kitschification of 911

The Kitschification of 911. The words of Phillip Roth as quoted on a recent episode of radio open source. In this program I discuss how the events of that day have been used and abused in the poorest of taste for the most shameful of activities. I also remember and asess numbers, in terms of cost of lives and resources.

On Point Episode with Howard Zinn on the Utility of War

Open Source on 9-11 literature

Air Travel Moves Further Back in Time

Turned on the TV this morning as I finished packing. I had left myself only an hour to take care of last minute things and head to the airport for my flight back to Amsterdam via Munich. I’ve been doing these types of flights for years and years, I’m pretty good with timing and predicting problems at the airport. But man oh man.. I was so angry when I watched the news this morning.

The annoying British accent-guy on CNN international was going on and on about how New Scotland Yard just foiled a terrorist plot. Bla bla blah…. flights to the US from the UK.. bla bla bla a legitimate threat. I paused during my packing to occasionally turn to the TV and tell him to go fuck himself, him and hus smug “I understand terrorism and airtravel” reporting.

It was too late to try and get to the airport earlier. Not enough time. When I arrived the lines were longer than I’d ever seen, and it seemed like no one understood what was going on. Guess they don’t have time for the news when they wake up.

The line for checkin is long and full of people being turned away for flights to the UK. The people are very annoyed, and slowly start to ask each other what is going on. My own flight leaves mysteriously on time, though I didn’t know it at the time as I was stuck on the line the simply wouldn’t move. I looked up and down the terminal and enjoyed the surreal moment; at every desk there was an airline employee on a phone… waiting.

As I got shuffled from line to line, counter to counter, seemed like no one wanted to give me an alternative flight to my darling Amsterdam. Finally I found someone and pleaded my case, determined not to pay any penalties just because allegedly New Scotlandyard caught some terrorist plot.

I had to stand there and wait for quite a long time. As I stood there I pictured the CNN guy, still babbling along about what a huge deal this is and what a huge threat the UK and the US face today, and how the whole world will suffer. What a bunch of heresay and bullshit.

Think about it. They come on television, the authorities backed by the reporters the repeat verbatim their ever word, and they tell us a terror threat has been averted. They even go on to say it is likely to be a affiliate of Al Qaeda. ( I love how AlQaeda is painted to be like a radio station, like NBC and its affiliates. ) We the viewers, the citizens, are supposed to believe it. Hell, we automatically believe it. If its in the news and its reported by our authorities, it has to be real. And as a result, we all have to be punished of course… longer lines, stricter requirements, etc. As if they finally figured out how to stop terror this time, they’ve finally got the formula. Who doesn’t understand by now that this war on terrorism is the most inexact science / guessing game the world has ever seen? It’s all about acting like they know what’s going on.. and the public believing them. They follows panic at the airports, further stress on citizens who already have to deal with their budget cuts, taxes for their crusades in the middle east and beyond, losing family members to manufactured wars, and no garuntee of any kind of pension after a lifetime of paying for it.

Oddly enough, as I’m waiting for my new flight, which has now been delayed for 2-3 hours, a security guy starts talking to me. He had just found out about the UK situation, he told me. I mentioned that it happened early this morning, but that the truth is we really have no idea if anything happened. His eyes open wider and he leans in with his terrible breath, “I tell you what I think, and I know people don’t like to hear it, but I believe the US government had something to do with 9/11, and they love having these situations to get more support from scared people.”

I looked around a little before responding, as it felt like a setup. In my mind’s eye I could picture me taking the bait and saying “yes, I think so” and then his security buddies jump me and I never make it back to home-sweet-home. – I didn’t see any other security people around, so I quickly responded, “It’s certainly possible, regardless if people agree with you, it would not be impossible.” And I added one more line before trying to get out of the path of his terrible coffee breath, “But really, it doesn’t matter who did it anymore. What matters is what people believe and how they write it in the history books.” With that he gave me a knowing secret-society nod and went back to yelling at frustrated passengers who dared to move the little designated area rope.

I guess I’ll make it to Amsterdam today. But I’m pretty fed up with air travel and global logic regarding terrorism. What’s the point if we can’t really fly as free humans anymore. We can’t carry our things anymore. We have to get on the plane naked. Actually I take it back, that would be interesting. But barring the charm of nudity, I don’t see how the terrorists haven’t in fact won. We may still be alive, but the question becomes, with all the lines, fearmongering, half-truths, and heresay.. how are we really living?