Home > observations > 9/11 6 years on from many angles

9/11 6 years on from many angles

September 11, 2007
  • I put up last year’s post again, 9/11, five years on, because nothing’s changed, and I still feel the same way as I did then.  But Google Reader didn’t grab it so here’s a link.

  • Paul linked to An Unquiet Mind posting a quote from Sagan that seems to apply rather well to 9/11
  • Cajun’s answer is mass murder.  Sorry, Cajun; I don’t know what else to call it.
  • Les posted An interview the Colin Powell that is damned well worth reading.
  • At The Pump Handle David Michaels calls for compensation for ground zero workers
  • Zuska is at a loss for words, which must be better than the feeling I have that my words are completely inadequate
  • Creek Running North notes some other history that took place on this day
  • Thoughts From Kansas identifies where we got sidetracked in 911+6
  • And over at Respectful Insolence, Orac posts a Quicktime video, What We Saw, created by someone who lived 500 yards from the North Tower.
Categories: observations
  1. September 11, 2007 at 22:59 | #1

    After bin Laden released the first of this month’s videos, the White House reaction was to dismiss it since “But bin Laden is somebody who is a symbolic leader of al Qaeda” (Tony Snow), that he is “virtually impotent” (Fran Townsend: http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN0926586920070909)

    Now the war in Iraq is about Al Qaeda, which wasn’t in Iraq before the US invaded, and which bin Laden clearly implies his part of his organization.

    So the White House clearly contradicts itself.  I truly believe the Bush administration wants a steady state of war, whether it be Iraq, Iran, or elsewhere.

  2. September 12, 2007 at 08:06 | #2

    I’ll take mass murder, thank you…

    They want a seventh century society, I will happily provide them with it.

    MC

  3. September 12, 2007 at 08:17 | #3

    I left my comment on Cajun’s site.

  4. September 12, 2007 at 09:18 | #4

    They want a seventh century society, I will happily provide them with it.

    I must admit you have me scratching my head here.  Who’s “They?”  If we slaughter a couple million Muslims to get Al Queda (which wouldn’t work anyway; they’re scattered all over the place) we’d be killing around ten thousand innocent people for every AQ.  And then AQ would have to outsource their applications process to handle the crush of recruits.  We would be international pariahs and possibly even face reprisals from other nuclear-armed states.

    Britain’s most recent terror attacks were all home-grown.  The only way to stop these particular fire-ants is to change the ecology that supports them. (Well that, and continued intelligence and police work, and narrowly targeted military strikes)

  5. September 12, 2007 at 09:22 | #5

    My response that might not show up on Cajun’s page:

    I think Kevin’s point is one being missed, and is a rationale one to make.  For example, Cajun, if I hit you while we were sitting at the bar, I mean swung you around and punched you in the face, would you just get right back up on the bar stool as if nothing happened.  Human pysche seems to dictate that we don’t just lay down, but instead we get up and defend ourselves.

    My point being, that you can’t get rid of terrorism by blowing people up.  Terrorism is an idea and ideas are damn near impossible to destroy.  You instead have to give people an alternative to joining terrorist ideals.  When people have nothing to loose because their land, economy, and livelihood is in ruins they will be more likely to fight for causes such as terrorism.  Because they have nothing to loose.

    I would like to see more money and time being spent on securing economies in states where terrorists are brewing.  Give people a job and a family and they will have more to loose from joining terrorism.

  6. September 12, 2007 at 10:24 | #6

    Human pysche seems to dictate that we don’t just lay down, but instead we get up and defend ourselves.

    Which explains why so many people want to start lobbing nukes in the general direction of people who have the same religion as the 9/11 attackers.  However counterproductive that might be. 

    I don’t mean to diss Cajun here – lots of people feel that way.  Who didn’t, for varying periods of time after 9/11? 

    Human nature is what it is.  But it is also a danger to us.  As Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”.  It is not fuzzy idealism, it is a starkly practical warning.

  7. September 12, 2007 at 12:29 | #7

    Sorry, above I meant to say:
    You instead have to give people an alternative to joining terrorist ideals.

  8. Ted
    September 12, 2007 at 16:31 | #8

    I’m going to go with something unpopular for a minute. (For sensitivity sake, I waited an extra day—It is the day after…)

    We have a general population growth of about 7,400 people in the US every day. Some are born, some immigrate legally, some illegally jump the fence.

    But day-in, day-out, it adds roughly 7,400 per day.

    So we lost 3,000 people one day. Yes, it’s poignant. It’s filled with pathos. The TV was VERY dramatic. Many people showed great gravitas….

    But again, …7,400 each day.

    Folks there’s a glut of human capital out there. I don’t even blink that we had 30,000 domestic gunshot deaths last year. Or however many car deaths.

    I watched the whole 9/11 thing for about 24 hrs. Have a TV right here next to my workstation so caught it all—from the first hit, to the public saying, “Where the f*ck’s the president anyway?”. To the wee hours the next day.

    I guess, I’m surprised by the general reaction. It’s not that I’m heartless; but I didn’t know these people, and we all die. It’s not like dying is a unique event. You’re headed down that road too.

    So my question is thus:

    1. Am I a prick for not being as moved as many apparently are?

    2. Why are the rest of you so moved over 9/11? TV coverage? Empathy? Proper framing? Nationalism? It seems to transcend political orientation.

  9. September 12, 2007 at 17:19 | #9

    It isn’t an insensitive question.  I can’t speak for anyone else, but here goes.  To question 1; heck, I dunno.  People differ, we are all somewhere on the curve. 

    To question 2; it’s because it was deliberate intent.  It wasn’t people being killed on the highway, or a large number of individual murders, it was 19 people murdering almost three thousand people in a leveraged attack, with tremendous economic impact and the promise of much more. 

    I am not nearly as frightened by the 9/11 attack as I am by the unreasoning rage it has brought out in nearly everyone.  We have squandered our moral high ground in the search for the illusion of security.

    9/11 is now a unit of measure, like “fully loaded 747s crashing” or “Columbines”.  As in; “The US death toll from smoking is 130 9/11s”.

  10. September 12, 2007 at 19:57 | #10

    1. Nope you are simply responding to an event in a different way than others.  What would make you an asshole is if you did the Jerry Falwell approach, where the day after you said it was all our faults for being gay and not renouncing our faith in jesus.

    2. I agree with DOF.  9/11 was different.  Nuff said.

    I think a better reaction than the fear, confusion, anger, and other responses would have been, how can we keep this from happening?  And actually thought about it, rather than assume we must attack them back.  Killing terrorism is a little more complex than dropping bombs.

  11. September 12, 2007 at 22:20 | #11

    Honestly, I’m quite tired of the 9/11 culture and industry.  Especially since Bush/Cheney et al have made it irrelevant to anything.

  12. james old guy
    September 13, 2007 at 18:34 | #12

    I have no high moral ground when a group tells me its either convert to their way of thinking or die. Don’t hand me the reason’s they did this, their only shame is that they did not kill more Americans. I don’t believe in turning the other cheek, I believe in the old an eye for an eye. Do I hold a religion responsible for the acts of its followers, when they fail to condemn and hunt down the so called violation of their so called beliefs then I have no choice to consider that they encourage them.

  13. September 13, 2007 at 20:06 | #13

    James, I think there are a LOT of Muslims who condemn the terrorism, no matter what the belief or religion of the perpetrator.  Do you know why a group plotting bombings and even the kidnapping of Canadian MPs was arrested in Toronto?  BECAUSE A PROMINENT, DEVOUT MUSLIM WAS A MOLE (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/13/terror—plot.html)

    You might want to read a little wider.

  14. Ted
    September 14, 2007 at 13:56 | #14

    when they fail to condemn and hunt down the so called violation of their so called beliefs then I have no choice to consider that they encourage them.

    Likewise, when a hellfire missle or a US made 2000lb bomb “falls” on a building in Gaza, they—the other side—might have no other choice but consider that we—the innocent taxpayers—might be encouraging things.

    I really, really, REALLY like the Monkeysphere meme, because it’s so right on the money that (IMO) it should be considered “Philosophy (Simplified)”

    PS: You know what the workaround for Dunbar’s number is? To consciously be misanthropic enough so that there’s always room to accommodate someone abstract in your 150 when the rage strikes you.

  15. September 14, 2007 at 15:24 | #15

    Thanks for the Monkeysphere link Ted.  I posted it on my site

Comments are closed.