Each successive anniversary of 9/11 is a reminder to us that we need to get over it, we should have gotten over it long ago, those who planned the act triumph more greatly with each year that passes with us not getting over it, and if we don't get over it soon, it will be too late to ever gain back the liberties and freedoms so cheaply given away on that day.
Just imagine if we were in the late 1950s, and still obsessed with defeating the Nazis, and remaking our entire society to protect against the threat from Hitler.
That's where we are today in America. That's how pathetic we are.
Number of people who died due to Hitler: ~50,000,000
Number of people who died due to terrorist attacks in the US: ~3000
Number of people who die in a car accident in the US EVERY YEAR: ~40,000
Number of children who can be saved EVERY YEAR by bringing US infant mortality rate down to Slovenia's or Czech Republic's (!!) level: ~11,000
How many lives could be saved by directing anti-terrorist organization's funding towards preventing car accidents or other preventable causes of death?
"How many lives could be saved by directing anti-terrorist organization's funding towards preventing car accidents or other preventable causes of death?"
Yeah, but it's harder for the government to spy and control you using infant mortality or traffic safety as an excuse. And using tax dollars for improving infant mortality is socialism, while using tax dollars to grab your balls is patriotism.
Nazis were defeated as such, so there was no way to have them as some sort of 'imaginary enemy'. So failing that govt invented another one - USSR. And that worked both ways, US was such an enemy from the USSR's point of view. USSR collapsed (an event, just like defeating Nazis) - time to look for another 'imaginary enemy'. Since it was hard to use a country this time, let's pick something less tangible - terrorist organisations. This can't be easily defeated, and also allows to 'attack' countries that supposedly are home for such 'terrorists'.
Just my POV into all this. And I'm not picking on US, it's just that it's most prominent there...
How exactly was the USSR "imaginary"? And how was it invented by "govt"? Do you mean the US government? Please try to formulate your thoughts more clearly, and please study history more carefully before proposing sweeping theories.
The US government in the 50s and 60s wildly overstated the strategic threat from the USSR to the United States, notably the infamous bomber and missile gaps:
I'm not saying that USSR was imaginary (I was born there). I'm saying that USSR as an enemy to US was more or less 'imaginary'. (Same goes the other direction as well, BTW). Did USSR attack US on a massive scale, and on US soil? Like Germany attacked Poland during WW2? Was the threat as real as it was being presented to the masses?
"Did USSR attack US on a massive scale, and on US soil?"
No, they did not. But is that because the USSR was never a threat? Or, was it because the US correctly assessed the USSR's threat and planned accordingly? I won't say that the M.A.D. deterrence strategy was the correct strategy, but I think it would be silly to say that there never was a threat of global war. There certainly were moments where that almost happened. It's worth noting that while both the US and USSR drew up battle plans for potential war, only the USSR had a preemptive strike as a key part of its primary plan.
>Or, was it because the US correctly assessed the USSR's threat and planned accordingly?
Absolutely not. Read/watch some Noam Chomsky and/or various BBC documentaries like "The power of nightmares". The USSR was falling apart. Yes, they had nukes and could have nuked us but the threat was vastly overblown precisely for the reason the GP states: to give us a boogy man to be scared of.
The USSR was falling apart in the 1960's during the Cuban missile crisis? I've actually studied the downfall of the Soviet Union and the notion that it fell apart simply because of economic or political pressures is rather simplistic.
The problem with the USSR over it's entire existence is that it had trouble maintaining legitimacy. The Communist Party effectively ruled the country but it's legitimacy was derived from revolutionary nature. The further the Party strayed from the promotion of world-wide Communism, its entire modus operandi, the more clear it became that it actually ruled for itself.
With this in mind, the Communist Party had to maintain a state of constant belligerence with the United States and the Western world and had to promote international Communism with every chance it got. International Communism had to be its end game and this entailed, ultimately, war with America.
When Gorbachev took control and softened relations with the United States, as well as shifted control of the country from the Party to the Government, he actually weakened his right to rule and that is one of the many reasons he was ultimately deposed.
While it is certainly true American politicians used the Cold War for political ends, It's simply not true that the Soviet Union was no threat, or that the threat was even vastly overblown. The documentary you mention is comical in that is is both fear mongering and condemning fear mongering.
It wasn't to give us a boogy man, it was just that the whackjobs that thought the USSR was a huge boogyman (before we turned it into one) were listened to. There's a decent section on this in the book Drift.
Many people wanted the US and UK to drop nuclear bombs on Russia shortly after WWII. That was a real threat to the Soviet Union.
See, for example, Bertram Russell
> "If the whole world outside of Russia were to insist upon international control of atomic energy to the point of going to war on this issue, it is highly probable that the Soviet government would give way on this issue. If it did not, then if the issue were forced in the next year or two, only one side would have atomic bombs, and the war might be so short as not to involve utter ruin."
hmm you probably couldn't be faulted about thinking that all this was imaginary until you get a grenade thrown at you - I was part of an NGO team in Kabul, Afghanistan that was targeted by a grenade thrown from a motorcycle (tandem) that providentially didn't explode.
And how is that an example of terrorism? By your own admission you were in Kabul, Afghanistan, a country that neither called for nor welcomes the U.S., it was an invasion. I would expect hostile action in an invaded territory (unless you were a muslim NGO, in which case I'd retract).
Exactly. This is the thing that frustrates me the most about the reporting about Iraq and Afgan wars: anyone who fights back is part of the terrorist organization. I imagine if Russia plopped down bases, artillery, tanks and so on on american soil, citizens would probably attack them in the hopes of driving them out. That's not terrorism, that's defending your country from an unwanted foreign invader. Some might say that's the duty of any able bodied citizen.
But the presence of violence in Afghanistan is not evidence of a broader existential threat or a globally organised campaign. Its evidence of a country that has had decades of war and death. This [1] survey suggests that many Afghans don't even know about 9/11. What threat are these people to the USA?
>He didn't have a base and support in other countries. He didn't have an army of thousands backing him up.
The Norway massacre is dissimilar, but these points here are the same. There is no, and never was a "global terrorist network". That's all fantasy to sell more useless war to american citizens.
Well, yes and no. There is certainly no "global terrorist network" as put forward by some with, as you suggest, a hidden agenda, a vast network of those "out to get" the USA.
But there was and is global co-operation between terrorist groups, which is why sometimes IRA members turn up in Colombia[1], and there is a definite link between global organised crime and terrorism (whether it be ETA buying guns from the mafia or FARC being funded by cocaine exports).
The fantasy really is the belief by many in the US that terrorism equates to a hatred of America, which in reality is not the case.
I disagree that "the terrorists won". If you actually look at what Osama claimed as the reason in his videos, "all" they wanted is for the USA/foreign forces to get off their land (oh, and for Israel to not exist anymore). It was never an "attack on our freedom".
In the end, everybody lost(except for the military industrial complex): Americans lost freedoms, and quite a few more foreign forces entered the Arabic countries.
True, but they won a small victory: now we get a little taste of what we've made life to be for them. It's small compared to what they go through but it's much more than it was in the past.
And here is a choice extract that totally contradicts your erroneous belief.
"(Q2) [...] what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
(a) The religion of the Unification of God [...] of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to [...] Muhammad...
...It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme."
Him and his kind want to impose a theocracy on the entire world. Under the rules of jihad (outlined in the Koran), once they call you to islam and you refuse to take up islam, they have the right to kill you. http://islamqa.info/en/ref/43087
They are not just opposed to America, but also to buddhism, hinduism and African pagan religions (hence they ran a trade in Black African slaves for 1300 years). http://www.amazon.co.uk/Islams-Black-Slaves-History-Diaspora... The 1951 UN report on slavery documented that 5% of the population of Saudi Arabia and Yemen were slaves. That is almost 100 years after the US fought the Civil War. Non-muslim black Africans are still being taken as slaves in Mauritania and Sudan (which is why the non-muslim south of Sudan seceded from the muslim north last year). Baroness Cox of Britain is still going to Sudan to buy slaves in order to free them. http://groupspaces.com/humanitariancentre/item/205497 Books on sharia law say that slavery is legal under islam.
Over 5,000 buddhists in southern Thailand have been slaughtered by muslim extremists in the past 8 years. That dwarfs the deaths in the WTC, but you probably haven't heard of it.
Bin Laden's letter to America offers up Palestine as a pretext. But his kind have said they plan to take back Spain for islam (it was occupied by jihadis for 700 years, don't you know). It also explains the civil war in Sudan, and the massacres in Thailand. The jihad is also going on in Nigeria, Mali, and Kenya.
It is eurocentric arrogance to ignore what the muslim extremists are telling you they want.
By all means get on with your life, but don't deceive yourself about what they want.
But we have gotten over it.
Getting over it does not mean you forget the people who lost their lives in the tragedy. It means you rebuild and continue to focus on other things that are important to the time or era you live in. I'm reminded of this every morning, when i look out my window and see the new tower standing tall. And if you've heard the debates our presidential candidates are having lately, terrorism is barely mentioned, the focus is on the economy, deficits, etc.
We have? So I can fly back to the US now without having to worry about TSA grabbing my ballsack or blasting me with untested X-ray machines? The patriot act is gone? NDAA?
The US hasn't remotely gotten over it. Long after the orchestrators of 911 have forgotten all about it (or died), politicians in the US will be dreaming up some new way that a terrorist could potentially, theoretically, possibly, attack us and passing laws to stop it.
Getting over it also doesn't mean forgoing security measures.
I travel fairly frequently. Instead of speaking theoretically, ask yourself how many times has the TSA really pulled you aside, and how has the patriot act actually changed your day to day living?
For the vast majority of people, it's probably not much. I will admit that security lines can be long, so you have to get to the airport a little earlier, but that's a minor inconvenience.
I find the x-ray machines to be better than the prior machines that were used, but I cannot comment on whether or not they have been "tested".
Actually, flying since 911 is a nightmare. We used to travel back to the US every year to visit my family. Since 911 I've flown back twice and decided against doing it anymore. I actually get pulled aside every time because i have a "common name". No hint at how I can avoid this happening every time, just sit in a room watching people be humiliated for two hours until they call my name and say "you have a common name".
The new x-ray machines are not even as good as the machines they had previously. Who are you listening to to think that? If you listen to actual security experts (none of which are working for TSA) they'll tell you that this is security "theater". The security is not even slightly better than it was pre-911. It's just now massively inconvenient.
And you find getting to the airport earlier is a "minor" inconvenience? Having to get to an hour flight more than an hour earlier? I.e. the waiting time being longer than the flight itself and the entire travel time being close to what it would take to drive is an "minor" inconvenience? What would constitute a major inconvenience?
No, TSA costs a lot of money, creates a huge amount of inconvenience and provides no extra security. A complete and utter failure and only done so we can feel like we're "doing something". We didn't need to do anything. There have only been two attempts since then and both attackers (a) got through the heightened security anyway and (b) failed due to their own incompetence.
Maybe this depends on where you live in the country, but in my area, it's much more about remembering the victims than it is about remembering how we need to bring Al Qaeda to justice.
I don't see what the problem is with remembrance of the dead.
Ironic that we bitch out the government taking our liberties while we pour over the personal correspondence of the victims of a tragedy.
Democracy is a mirror. If you don't like what you see, start by changing yourself. If privacy is important to you, then don't read the personal pager messages (illegally obtained?) just because they are posted on the internet and everyone else is doing it.
Others have opined that unencrypted radio broadcasts can't reasonably be considered private (they're certainly way less inherently private than words written on paper in my view), but I would add that the magnitude of the attack gives us a greater right to read them.
(The same way we typically don't feel guilty about reading Anne Frank's private diaries following the Nazi atrocities and her death in a concentration camp.)
Yes, it is. If someone leaves their journal lying in a coffee shope, I won't read it. If my neighbor leaves their Wi-Fi open, I won't hack it. If someone is talking a few meters away, I won't use eavesdropping device to listen to them, and if someone sends an unencrypted communication, I won't read it just because I have the technical ability to do so.
May I am slightly mixing my definition of personal with private, but where is the respect for other people?
"It's not personal if you broadcast it unencrypted" is the same line of thought as "she was asking to get raped". Just my opinion.
>If someone leaves their journal lying in a coffee shop
Not even remotely near the same thing. Can we agree to stop making crappy physical analogies, please?
> If my neighbor leaves their Wi-Fi open, I won't hack it.
It's not "hacking" (or even a little bit unethical) to associate to an open AP - it amounts to an advertisement of a free service available. Really you're not crossing any creeper lines there unless you start rifling through the other computers connected to that AP.
"Not even remotely near the same thing. Can we agree to stop making crappy physical analogies, please?"
No, that is exactly the same thing. Private correspondence has the expectation of being private. Just because you have the technical ability to do something, doesn't mean you should.
I'm not sure I follow, what's pathetic about remembering the past? I still see stories about Columbine, VT shootings, and 9/11. Today is 9/11, what'd you expect? My children will undoubtedly learn about 9/11 and probably be reminded on 9/11s of the future. There's nothing wrong with this, it's called history.
I don't think you can directly compare Hitler and the Nazis with an amorphous terrorist organisation.
It was pretty easy to tell when Nazi Germany was defeated - formal surrender, Hitler shoots himself etc. How do you tell if AQ and its various offshoots have been defeated?
It is my hope that sometime in the future, when we finally go 5 or more years without an attack, some of these restrictions will be rolled back.
>How do you tell if AQ and its various offshoots have been defeated?
Well, how do you tell they exist at all? Because some government that's taking your rights claim they do. Yes, some actual terrorists did 911. And since then? Nothing. The only "evidence" we have of any activity at all are some clear entrapment cases by the FBI. If there really are active terrorists groups trying to attack the US why are the only cases we actually hear about clearly entrapment?
The videos of their figurehead? The word of various countries involved? The guys which have been caught red handed trying to pull off something? (Hardly "entrapment".. need I mention the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber? Both were AQ operatives)
Also, please learn what "entrapment" means. It doesn't mean what you think it means.. for absolute starters, entrapment is when you convince someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not have.
You mean the videos where he said he had nothing to do with 911? Or you mean the ones that were globally criticized for appearing doctored?
>need I mention the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber? Both were AQ operatives)
Haha! Exactly my point. The "shoe bomber" was a lunatic who worked with one other person and claimed to be working with AQ. I bet anyone who the CIA would actually classify as AQ never heard of this guy before his silly little stunt.
>Also, please learn what "entrapment" means.
I know very well what it means. Have you not been paying attention? The FBI has brought up two cases where they "caught" someone who was carrying out the FBI's plan with the FBI's materials and money after the FBI convinced them to do it. There is no reason to believe they would have done anything without the FBI's prodding.
If the contention that an international organisation has been deconstructed, or never existed, it barely matters where a subsequent attack actually takes place.
You're not wrong, but gaining back the liberties that, on that day and over the years since, were so cheaply traded away by a cowed and ignorant populace for the idiotic bluster and security theater offered by the worst US president in living memory and his minders and masters... well, that is going to take more than "getting over it".
It would take a massive and concerted exertion of power, by an informed and engaged citizenry, and would probably be every bit as hard as (if not harder than) winning those freedoms was in the first place.
In other words, there's not much evidence to suggest that it will ever happen. Will America ever again see the levels of individual liberty and respect for the rule of law as the America I was born into a few decades ago? (Personally, I still hope, and still vote(!), but I also left the USA in 2004...)
"I think that many (too many) people feel that, if you don't stop and make a public display of paying tribute, you don't care. And God forbid you don't care about a tragedy, lest you be thought of as a heartless bastard. It's like all these personal moments are made public simply so we don't look bad in public about our personal feelings.
At this point, we are past the grieving stage. We are not grieving as a nation. We are now posturing; making a presentation for the sole purpose of avoiding the appearance of not caring."
I don't think we (and I use "we" because I believe it was not at attack only against the US, but one against some values our Western civilization is based upon) should ever forget it.
But I agree we should learn from it, pay attention to our own reactions and realize this is not a war on terror, but a war on intolerance.
Soft power is key here. It's sad I don't see it being employed enough. Plus, it's a lot cheaper than invading a country.
Just imagine if we were in the late 1950s, and still obsessed with defeating the Nazis, and remaking our entire society to protect against the threat from Hitler.
That's where we are today in America. That's how pathetic we are.