9/11: What we need to remember
1) We launched not one but two pointless wars, both of which are still going on, and which have cost more American lives than were lost on 9/11. We did this because we "had to do something," even though the nations we attacked had nothing to do with 9/11.
2) We abandoned civil liberties with the Patriot Act, government-sanctioned wiretapping, and a general fear-based climate. We opened up a torture facility at Guantanamo. We held and are still holding dozens of persons who are suspects, not convicted, of crimes, contrary to habeas corpus and the right of an accused person to a speedy trial (dodging that requirement by never actually charging them with anything).
3) We declared open season on Muslims and persecuted them in a thousand small and often petty ways. We abused our own citizens, and conservative rhetoric divided us into two camps, where either you agreed with the government's policies without reservation or qualification, or else you were a traitor.
9/11 was a political act of violence by an extremely wealthy and powerful individual who was angry at the US for what he perceived as a betrayal when we stopped supporting his activities as a mujahideen in Afghanistan versus the Russians. We misconstrued this as emblematic of an "Islam versus the West" war, with the attendant propagandizing and chest-thumping. We now interpret any act of violence by a Muslim as part and parcel of that supposed war.
We lost something that day: our conscience and our decency, driven and dominated by fear. We now have a Presidential candidate, supported by tens of millions of followers, whose message is all about that fear and hatred. If we had reacted like Americans to 9/11, all would have been well. But we reacted with ignorance and prejudice instead, and threw our core values into the trash in the name of "security." Can we ever recover?
In the defense of terrorism, many suffer and many profit. Stadiums come to mind searching people and using the pretense to make sure people pay whatever they want for drinks. I'm told back in the day, people would walk in drinking beers and nobody cared. This stuff people tell themselves it us to keep them safe, but all it can do is stop hundreds from being shot inside and not outside.
On and on, on and on, how much got worse, how much got better, who is profiting taking away our freedoms.
Also, we might have spent the 2000s with surpluses which would have been a lot better off than with trillion dollar deficits. Instead spend and cut out of control and we always have excuses.
Quote: joeshlabotnikWe lost something even more valuable than thousands of lives and some planes and buildings as a result:
How about you have some respect?
Quote: RSQuote: joeshlabotnikWe lost something even more valuable than thousands of lives and some planes and buildings as a result:
How about you have some respect?
How about you try to understand what I'm saying? The loss of our national character was, yes, even worse than the deaths and destruction. But if you want to do a strict body count, the butcher's bill from the two wars we started was far greater than that, especially if you include Afghani and Iraqi civilian deaths. In a misguided attempt to obtain revenge for the attacks, we caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people and tossed our ethics and morality away. That, I argue, was a horrible mistake.
You may disagree with what I'm saying, but I won't accept your insulting me because of it. I have plenty of "respect."
Quote: 487tracydrive"If we had reacted like Americans to 9/11, all would have been well. " REALLY !
Yes. Really. We would have cleaned up, mourned our dead, initiated proportionate and well-thought-out security measures to stop it from happening again, and gone on with our lives. That would have been as well as things could have gotten. instead, we overreacted. And we now have the wave of bigotry and anti-Muslim hatred that may carry an evil man to the White House.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13This may well just be the worst post I have seen all year. If it's not the worst, it's right up there with any system or dice control posts I've seen./q]
The worst post, because you disagree with it, I take it. Sorry, I should have cleared it with you first.
No, all would not have been well. Even if we had done nothing at all, we still would have just lost thousands of American lives and the shared illusion that we were somehow safe in a world where, increasingly, a small number of people can do large amounts of damage. It would have been nearly impossible 100 years ago for 19 people to kill 3000 because it used to be that numbers mattered. Now they don't. One of the saddest hypotheticals of my career is whether, if I had been in the right place a few years earlier, I might have played a hand in preventing 9/11. I worked with Jeff Jonas at SRD in the early 2000s (after 9/11, the subsequent dot-com bust, and my move to Las Vegas). The link-analysis technology we produced might have tied together the entire network of 9/11 murderers using only publicly-available (non-classified) information, if only it had been in place:Quote: JoeshlabotnikWe lost something that day: our conscience and our decency, driven and dominated by fear. We now have a Presidential candidate, supported by tens of millions of followers, whose message is all about that fear and hatred. If we had reacted like Americans to 9/11, all would have been well. But we reacted with ignorance and prejudice instead, and threw our core values into the trash in the name of "security." Can we ever recover?
http://jeffjonas.typepad.com/SRD-911-connections.pdf
And I know the tech worked because, in the years that followed, it was deployed at border crossing and we got confirmation that it had helped prevent several domestic terrorist incursions. Regardless, it's easy to decry the nationalist reaction we had in the immediate aftermath, but that doesn't actually help anyone or anything. Neither does attempting to counter that tribal fear and hatred with haughty disdain and sarcastic derision. Honor the memories of the fallen by working toward a more peaceful, respectful world so they will not have died in vain.
Quote: MathExtremist
And I know the tech worked because, in the years that followed, it was deployed at border crossing and we got confirmation that it had helped prevent several domestic terrorist incursions. Regardless, it's easy to decry the nationalist reaction we had in the immediate aftermath, but that doesn't actually help anyone or anything. Neither does attempting to counter that tribal fear and hatred with haughty disdain and sarcastic derision. Honor the memories of the fallen by working toward a more peaceful, respectful world so they will not have died in vain.
I think it does help to realize how far backward we slid in that aftermath. It also helps that we identify the direct correlation between our (over)reactions and the current climate of tribalism. So many Americans can only think of a Muslim as a guy with a beard, wearing a robe, with a maniacal gleam in his eye, and clutching a bomb. We have never seen 9/11 as the depraved acts of an individual; we instead have parsed it as us vs. Muslims.
I'm not trying to counter those misperceptions, as they are embedded at this point. I just want people to know where they came from. Why does the conservative media insist on the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism"? Because so many people think that all Muslims are radical and potential terrorists (including some on this forum).
As far as what you might have personally done, well, that's water under the bridge. We would all have made better decisions, about a myriad of things, had we been equipped with a crystal ball.
Quote: 487tracydrive" And we now have the wave of bigotry and anti-Muslim hatred that may carry an evil man to the White House." Glad you at least realize Bill will be calling the shots if Hillary wins.
487tracydrive is nuked for being a sock puppet of nogojoe and SAMIAM.
Quote: Wizard487tracydrive is nuked for being a sock puppet of nogojoe and SAMIAM.
Wonder if that's Buzzs address.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI think it does help to realize how far backward we slid in that aftermath. It also helps that we identify the direct correlation between our (over)reactions and the current climate of tribalism. So many Americans can only think of a Muslim as a guy with a beard, wearing a robe, with a maniacal gleam in his eye, and clutching a bomb. We have never seen 9/11 as the depraved acts of an individual; we instead have parsed it as us vs. Muslims.
I'm not trying to counter those misperceptions, as they are embedded at this point. I just want people to know where they came from. Why does the conservative media insist on the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism"? Because so many people think that all Muslims are radical and potential terrorists (including some on this forum).
As far as what you might have personally done, well, that's water under the bridge. We would all have made better decisions, about a myriad of things, had we been equipped with a crystal ball.
So, are you in fact blaming Bill Clinton for the whole mess? He told a group of businessmen that he had the chance to kill Bin Laden, your "depraved individual" in 1998, but didn't pull the trigger on the cruise missile strike due to the prospect of 300 civilian casualties. The statement was made on September 10, 2001. The next day, our World Trade Center was attacked, not be an individual, but by a group, taking almost 3,000 lives.
Some of the changes we made after 9/11 are laughable. They check you at the airport hours before you actually get on a plane, instead of as you board. There is plenty of time for someone to do something devious in the interval. They made some color code up so they could tell us what the treat level is at a given time. Truthfully, I don't need to know what the threat level is because it should be obvious to everyone that is elevated based on the increase in security. Just do your best to keep me safe, thank you. They still have government agencies that don't communicate well enough; beat the crap out of people who want to stake out their territory and make them all work together to keep people safer.
Quote: AyecarumbaSo, are you in fact blaming Bill Clinton for the whole mess? He told a group of businessmen that he had the chance to kill Bin Laden, your "depraved individual" in 1998, but didn't pull the trigger on the cruise missile strike due to the prospect of 300 civilian casualties. The statement was made on September 10, 2001. The next day, our World Trade Center was attacked, not be an individual, but by a group, taking almost 3,000 lives.
Of course not. I wasn't talking about who should or shouldn't have been able to prevent the attacks. Don't try to hijack this into a Clinton-bashing exercise.
And yes, the prospect of civilian casualties was a valid concern.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikDon't try to hijack this into a Clinton-bashing exercise...
Joeshlabotnik, you set the table:
Quote: Joeshlabotnik's Original PostWe now have a Presidential candidate, supported by tens of millions of followers, whose message is all about that fear and hatred.
To think that the terrorist hatred for the West that precipitated as the coordinated events of 9/11, was the work of one-individual is misguided and minimizes the actual conflict. There have been, and still are thousands of militant Islamist fighters battling government troops around the world. They are kidnapping and beheading civilians to create terror, and actively recruiting new believers. Bin Laden may have been the poster child for 9/11, but he certainly wasn't the only one responsible. 15 years later we are still fighting a battle that I believe would have only been delayed, not prevented, if America responded differently to the 9/11 attacks.
We are doing something right.
Quote: gamerfreak15 years later, has there been a domestic terror attack carried out by a non-citizen?
We are doing something right.
Agreed. Interdiction has stopped a number of potential attacks at the border, or overseas. However, to Joeshlabotnik's point, it has come at a high cost: not just money spent, but in lost lives and curtailed freedoms.
