Ten Years of Terror
- Wind Swept
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:09 pm
- Title: Just Another Chris
- First Joined: 22 Jan 2003
Ten Years of Terror
I didn't want to mire Jan's thread with potential flame war fodder. With any luck, I'll be able to avoid starting one here.
My opinion? The United States lost the War on Terror the day we decided it was a war. — I was going to write a big long spiel, but apparently I don't have time just now. I'll post this anyway in the hope of finding an inspiring discussion to read on my return.
My opinion? The United States lost the War on Terror the day we decided it was a war. — I was going to write a big long spiel, but apparently I don't have time just now. I'll post this anyway in the hope of finding an inspiring discussion to read on my return.
"Roland was staring at Tiffany, so nonplussed he was nearly minused."
*Philoticweb.net = Phoebe (Discord)
*Philoticweb.net = Phoebe (Discord)
-
- Commander
- Posts: 8017
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:32 pm
- Title: Ewok in Tauntaun-land
To me, the biggest sign that the "terrorists won" is that there was even an argument about a Muslim community center being allowed to be built near ground zero.
It was supposedly an affront to the victims? I'm sorry, how about we keep in mind that these folks aren't the bad guys.
It was supposedly an affront to the victims? I'm sorry, how about we keep in mind that these folks aren't the bad guys.
Se paciente y duro; algún día este dolor te será útil.
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 5185
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
- Title: Age quod agis
- First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
- Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.
Yeah. Kinda this.To me, the biggest sign that the "terrorists won" is that there was even an argument about a Muslim community center being allowed to be built near ground zero.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII
- neo-dragon
- Commander
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
- Title: Huey Revolutionary
- Location: Canada
Well, if the purpose of terrorism is to instill fear, insecurity, and dread in the minds of your targets then I'd say they were hugely successful. But I'm not quite sure if that equates to winning. I don't really see how either side wins here.
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
- Frank Herbert's 'Dune'
- Frank Herbert's 'Dune'
- starlooker
- Commander
- Posts: 3823
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
- Title: Dr. Mom
- First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
- Location: Home. With cats who have names.
If I could find the diary entry I made that day, I'd quote it here.
It was about how I was scared, because it was obvious we were going to invade somebody, and also how I thought the term "War on Terror" was going to lead to a never-ending unwinnable conflict, much like the "War on Drugs." Go to war with a country, or a specific group, or whatever, and you can win. Go to war on a concept or a crime and you are in a never-ending battle because there will always be those people, foreign and domestic (Timothy McVeigh, anyone?) who want to commit those crimes to frighten us.
I'm pretty impressed that my 21-year old self hit that one square on the nose.
It's not a winnable war.
On the other hand, no, I don't think the terrorists won. At least, depending on what you think their goals are. I assume the collapse of the US government tends to be first on the agenda, and that's still alive and kicking.
And, yes, there was an argument about whether or not a community center could be built near the WTC. And there was never any real legal question but that it could be built there (if it had actually been funded). There will always be, and always has been bigotry. 9/11 gave it an ugly new way to turn. But the fact that the system rules according to law and not mob mentality would be a good argument that they did not win.
Government-sanctioned torture, on the other hand, is probably the biggest flaw in my reasoning. I will never forget how sick I felt on reading the Red Cross report on Guantanamo.
It was about how I was scared, because it was obvious we were going to invade somebody, and also how I thought the term "War on Terror" was going to lead to a never-ending unwinnable conflict, much like the "War on Drugs." Go to war with a country, or a specific group, or whatever, and you can win. Go to war on a concept or a crime and you are in a never-ending battle because there will always be those people, foreign and domestic (Timothy McVeigh, anyone?) who want to commit those crimes to frighten us.
I'm pretty impressed that my 21-year old self hit that one square on the nose.
It's not a winnable war.
On the other hand, no, I don't think the terrorists won. At least, depending on what you think their goals are. I assume the collapse of the US government tends to be first on the agenda, and that's still alive and kicking.
And, yes, there was an argument about whether or not a community center could be built near the WTC. And there was never any real legal question but that it could be built there (if it had actually been funded). There will always be, and always has been bigotry. 9/11 gave it an ugly new way to turn. But the fact that the system rules according to law and not mob mentality would be a good argument that they did not win.
Government-sanctioned torture, on the other hand, is probably the biggest flaw in my reasoning. I will never forget how sick I felt on reading the Red Cross report on Guantanamo.
There's another home somewhere,
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...
~~Mary Chapin Carpenter
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...
~~Mary Chapin Carpenter
-
- Commander
- Posts: 8017
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:32 pm
- Title: Ewok in Tauntaun-land
I assume the collapse of the US government tends to be first on the agenda, and that's still alive and kicking.
Well, mostly. It's getting increasingly dysfunctional and while I don't think that can be pointed directly back at 9/11, I do think the ever increasing divide between the parties since then is to blame. Enough that I would say it's at least tangentially related. That it would be a rather large point of members of the one party in the 2008 elections to draw attention to Obama's middle name, not to mention the insistence by some that he just might not be American, isn't something I would ignore here, either. (To be fair, this was a minority and both sides have their crazies.)
I don't think it's going to collapse but I do think it is on some very shaky legs at the moment and I see it getting much worse before it gets better.
I expect Syphon to come here as soon as he has time, to throw facts and figures my way, but just look at the Patriot Act and what the American people lost there, at the hands of their own government, in order to supposedly protect them.
I guess you can say no one's winning but I do think the American people lost a hell of a lot.
Se paciente y duro; algún día este dolor te será útil.
- starlooker
- Commander
- Posts: 3823
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
- Title: Dr. Mom
- First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
- Location: Home. With cats who have names.
- Syphon the Sun
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2218
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
- Title: Ozymandias
I actually don't feel like discussing this.I expect Syphon to come here as soon as he has time, to throw facts and figures my way, but just look at the Patriot Act and what the American people lost there, at the hands of their own government, in order to supposedly protect them.
That said, while I have problems with the PATRIOT Act at a fundamental level, I'd suggest anyone interested the statute's effects to read this article by law professor Orin Kerr, the leading expert on the Fourth Amendment and surveillance law.
From the abstract:
In this article, Professor Kerr argues that the common wisdom on the USA Patriot Act is wrong. Far from being a significant expansion of law enforcement powers online, the Patriot Act actually changes surveillance law in only minor ways and added several key privacy protections. By explaining the basic framework of surveillance law and applying it to the Patriot Act, Professor Kerr shows how the Patriot Act helped rationalize Internet surveillance law in ways that both law enforcement and civil libertarians should appreciate.
Step softly; a dream lies buried here.
- Rei
- Commander
- Posts: 3068
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
- Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
- First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
- Location: Between the lines
From The Globe and Mail:
I find the whole article articulates some of my concern about this past decade, especially the call to action issued to politicians to stand up and speak to the real issues instead of encouraging disillusionment with the government.But a decade into this secret war, no one really knows what price democracy pays, in freedom and self-respect, for the way it defends itself now.
If terror challenges democracy, the answer is more democracy, not less; more accountability and openness, not less. The question is whether the secret power we have allowed to spring up in our name is under any kind of democratic control. Do our elected representatives keep our secret agencies under sufficient scrutiny? Does the press know what is being done in our name?
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal
私は。。。誰?
Dernhelm
~Blaise Pascal
私は。。。誰?
Dernhelm
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
- Title: Stayin' Alive
- First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
- Location: Evansville, IN
Yeah, about the only good thing I can think of that's at least tangentially connected to all this is Brian has a job he might not have had otherwise that he enjoys and isn't nearly as repulsive as some would like to believe. Also, on a somewhat more flippant note, I have a biometric federal ID security clearance card thingie.Yup.This.Well, if the purpose of terrorism is to instill fear, insecurity, and dread in the minds of your targets then I'd say they were hugely successful. But I'm not quite sure if that equates to winning. I don't really see how either side wins here.
The enemy's fly is down.
I have one too, every contractor and employee at the refinery had to get a TWIC since it had a port for the oil tanker ships.Also, on a somewhat more flippant note, I have a biometric federal ID security clearance card thingie.Yup.This.Well, if the purpose of terrorism is to instill fear, insecurity, and dread in the minds of your targets then I'd say they were hugely successful. But I'm not quite sure if that equates to winning. I don't really see how either side wins here.
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
- Title: Stayin' Alive
- First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
- Location: Evansville, IN
Yep, that's how we are too. Everyone on plant site needs a TWIC card since we're on the river and some of our supplies arrive via barge. We also ship overseas in containers, but that stuff leaves via truck to some place in Tennessee where they have the cranes needed to transfer the containers to boats.
They also had the coast guard patrolling the river immediately after 9/11 and do so again whenever the threat level gets high enough.
All the contractors also need an ARSC card, but I think that's an OSHA thing whereas TWIC is TSA/Homeland Security. Supposedly, they intend to make TWIC a requirement for all transportation workers eventually, but it's only needed for seaports right now.
They also had the coast guard patrolling the river immediately after 9/11 and do so again whenever the threat level gets high enough.
All the contractors also need an ARSC card, but I think that's an OSHA thing whereas TWIC is TSA/Homeland Security. Supposedly, they intend to make TWIC a requirement for all transportation workers eventually, but it's only needed for seaports right now.
The enemy's fly is down.
-
- Commander
- Posts: 2535
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:22 am
- Title: is real!
- First Joined: 0- 9-2004
- Syphon the Sun
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2218
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
- Title: Ozymandias
-
- Commander
- Posts: 2535
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:22 am
- Title: is real!
- First Joined: 0- 9-2004
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
- Title: Stayin' Alive
- First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
- Location: Evansville, IN
- Janus%TheDoorman
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:05 am
- Title: The Original Two-Face
- Location: New Jersey
I feel a little conflicted about saying this since I understand where you guys who disagree with me are coming from, but all the same, but the idea that the US has lost the War on Terror or that the terrorists have won in any meaningful way is shenanigans.
9/11 had almost no effect on the US Government, economy, or citizenry.
Our foreign policy has remained essentially the same as it's ever been since WW2 - use our position as the eminent power in the world to destabilize, divide, and prevent any military or economic power from rising which can threaten our position. 9/11 revealed a gap in our analysis, and the Iraq and Afghan wars to address the problem are bigger and draw more attention than our usual method of dealing with threats that rise to our attention, but in principle, they're no different from our invasions of the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, our interventions in Lebanon, Somalia, and our less remembered wars with Bosnia and Kosovo. Iraq and Afghanistan were just next on the list (Second time around for Iraq). They are not the first, and will not be the last.
Our economy crashed at our own hands. I believe bin Laden published some statements to the effect that the WTC attack was not just symbolic, but was an attempt to paralyze some markets they way they reacted when credit began to freeze up in 2008. Regardless of his intent, it didn't work. There was a brief bit of shock and reaction in the economy following 9/11, but things went back to usual before there was any permanent damage done.
Our own day to day lives have not changed significantly. Mosques in Manhattan are convenient political targets during election years, but quickly forgotten afterward. If it wasn't that, the right wing of the country would be using some other nonsense issue we missed that year to stir up nationalism as a wedge. Has the immigration rhetoric stepped up? Sure, but not out of step with the issue, and not in any way related to 9/11. The hijackers came through the Canadian border for one, and the immigration debate has focused on how to deal with largely Mexican illegal immigrants as an economic issue, not a security issue.
Americans don't live in terror. We do an extra bit of hokey pokey at the airport, and complain that pat downs are dehumanizing while people who actually know why they call it terrorism flinch toward the floor every time a car backfires, and run for cover if they see a running car without a driver or a bag without an owner. What effect there has been on the US people's psyche is fading, and fades more every day since the US's military operations have been quite successful at disabling Al Qaeda's core and satellite franchises's ability to launch international attacks. In making sure that Americans can go about their day as worry free as they did before 9/11, we've been successful, and that's as much as win as anyone was looking for. All that we're doing now is trying to establish local security and intelligence forces that will prevent terrorist groups from reestablishing the ability to launch international attacks. How successful we'll be there is still up for debate, but the problem is being addressed with our nation's full capability.
Yes, the War on Terror is a "never-ending war" because it's not really a war, it's just a shiny new marketing title for an ongoing security policy. Talking about winning and losing it makes as much sense as talking about winning the way you brush your teeth. Your teeth meet a standard of clean even if you never fully "conquer" plaque, and the US will maintain a level of security whether or not we get a formal surrender from Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group.
9/11 had almost no effect on the US Government, economy, or citizenry.
Our foreign policy has remained essentially the same as it's ever been since WW2 - use our position as the eminent power in the world to destabilize, divide, and prevent any military or economic power from rising which can threaten our position. 9/11 revealed a gap in our analysis, and the Iraq and Afghan wars to address the problem are bigger and draw more attention than our usual method of dealing with threats that rise to our attention, but in principle, they're no different from our invasions of the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, our interventions in Lebanon, Somalia, and our less remembered wars with Bosnia and Kosovo. Iraq and Afghanistan were just next on the list (Second time around for Iraq). They are not the first, and will not be the last.
Our economy crashed at our own hands. I believe bin Laden published some statements to the effect that the WTC attack was not just symbolic, but was an attempt to paralyze some markets they way they reacted when credit began to freeze up in 2008. Regardless of his intent, it didn't work. There was a brief bit of shock and reaction in the economy following 9/11, but things went back to usual before there was any permanent damage done.
Our own day to day lives have not changed significantly. Mosques in Manhattan are convenient political targets during election years, but quickly forgotten afterward. If it wasn't that, the right wing of the country would be using some other nonsense issue we missed that year to stir up nationalism as a wedge. Has the immigration rhetoric stepped up? Sure, but not out of step with the issue, and not in any way related to 9/11. The hijackers came through the Canadian border for one, and the immigration debate has focused on how to deal with largely Mexican illegal immigrants as an economic issue, not a security issue.
Americans don't live in terror. We do an extra bit of hokey pokey at the airport, and complain that pat downs are dehumanizing while people who actually know why they call it terrorism flinch toward the floor every time a car backfires, and run for cover if they see a running car without a driver or a bag without an owner. What effect there has been on the US people's psyche is fading, and fades more every day since the US's military operations have been quite successful at disabling Al Qaeda's core and satellite franchises's ability to launch international attacks. In making sure that Americans can go about their day as worry free as they did before 9/11, we've been successful, and that's as much as win as anyone was looking for. All that we're doing now is trying to establish local security and intelligence forces that will prevent terrorist groups from reestablishing the ability to launch international attacks. How successful we'll be there is still up for debate, but the problem is being addressed with our nation's full capability.
Yes, the War on Terror is a "never-ending war" because it's not really a war, it's just a shiny new marketing title for an ongoing security policy. Talking about winning and losing it makes as much sense as talking about winning the way you brush your teeth. Your teeth meet a standard of clean even if you never fully "conquer" plaque, and the US will maintain a level of security whether or not we get a formal surrender from Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group.
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
-Alan Watts
-Alan Watts
Return to “Milagre Town Square”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 17 guests