Lesson To Be Learned From 9/11?

[ecnarf]

Well, to start this off, in English class the other day, we were discussing what a "tragedy" was, and some people gave their own example, and they also had to demonstrate that each tragedy had an "up side" - you know something to be gained.

 

So one girl replied that september 11th was a tragedy, but the upside was that if it had never happened there wouldn't be more security. I hope I'm not the only one who finds something wrong with this, as there's been minimal improvement in security since 9/11.

 

That got me thinking, what is the lesson that people (specifically, Americans) should have learned after 9/11?

 

If you ask me, I'd say that people should have come away realizing that people around the world (read: terrorists) hate America for their previous actions in foreign policy, not because they hate their "freedom" or (comparative lack of) values. I think that, through the way the Bush Administration has been speaking publicly about 9/11, many (certainly not all) Americans have felt that 9/11 was a completely unprovoked attack, that America has always been right in it's previous actions, and that attitude is still alive today.

[uglybutterfly]

Well said. I wish I could be more coherent and add something but..I cannot. So I'll just say Agreed.

[calgarydave]

YOu're absoultly right, the reason why the rest of the world hates americans is thier forgein policy since the end of WW2.

 

But whats worse is they're not learning from the lessons.

Who trained Bin Laden and the rest of Al Queda to fight the communists if Afghanastan, and thusly set it for the Talban to take over control? Yes thats right the Amercians!!

 

Who toppled a DEMOCRATICALLY elected government in Iraq, which then allowed Saddam to take power? Oh thats right the americans again.

 

They're still not learning. Everytime they try to police the world unilaterally they end up either

A) making things worse in the long run

B ) makign the rest of the world hate them more.

 

 

*edit* should be B ) not B)

Edited February 12, 2005 by calgarydave

[saturnine]

lesson: don't let terrorists on your planes

[rmak]

lesson: don't make terrorists through your own foreign policy

[Kayriss]

I remember reading something that said something to the degree of "9/11 made americans see themselves in crystal clairity how the rest of the world sees them" , or, all the hatred that was seen on tv but never quite understood became a reality.

Don't know if I'd call hat an upside, or if by "more security" you mean the patriot act, whether I'd see that girls' answer as an "upside".

[ecnarf]

lesson: make sure there are lots of trampolines around the bases of skyscrapers

Touche.

 

(8 character rule)

[Spritzup]

I remember when 9/11 happened and thinking to myself the world would never be same and that history books in the future would see that moment as the catalyst of what's to come, much like the assassination of the Arch Duke was the catalyst for WW1.

 

The Americans should have seen that they're at a crossroads in history right now with one path leading to the collapse of the USA and one path leading to there continued existence. I think that the problem lies in the growing gap between rich and poor in the world, and the fact that the USA is often seen as the pinacle of this western world. The Americans horrible foreign policy doesn't help this fact either. At some point for people in poor countries desperation kicks in the need to lash becomes overpowering, I mean they often have nothing to lose. To be honest, the similiarities between the collapse of the Roman Empire and the USA's postion right now is startling, from it's position as the only superpower, it's wealth, attitude and lack of morals.

 

The scary thing now though is that if the USA collapses it has the power to take the rest of the world down with it, and that scares the hell outta me (unless I'm already dead in which case I don't give a rat's ass). But this could turn into a huge post so I'll stop there.

 

WOW, look at me... those 2 years of university weren't a waste!

[saturnine]

9/11 is a joke.

 

ha.

 

o'doyle rules

[calumania]

The real tragedy is the aftermath. The thousands killed in foreign countries. The over-reaction, rash decisions, and the thick headed president.

[no yu begin wher i end]

The real tragedy is the aftermath. The thousands killed in foreign countries. The over-reaction, rash decisions, and the thick headed president.

Lesson: don't be a terrorist.

[TheKwas]

Lesson: Don't kill white people.

 

They bite.

[ecnarf]

9/11 never happened!

That's what the democrats want you to believe.

[borntohula]

did the americans learn anything from 9/11?? i'm not sure. it's hard to call them a unified country after this past election. i think 9/11 has brought attention to certain subjects, but people are just aware of their surroundings today as they were during the bush sr. and regan administrations.

 

at the risk of sounding insensitive... i think 9/11 was blown out of proportion. almost 3,000 people died in the attack and it was viewed as such a 'tragedy' but as we're seeing now, there are more real tragedies out there that deserve our attention. north american views on what happened on 9/11 are a bit ethnocentrist. 9/11 caused a huge uproar by the american administration that led them to take it all out first on afghanistan (the wrong place) and then on iraq (the wrong place, with oil). the americans are lucky they're able to fight back. who's fighting for the cause of the people in darfur right now??? as of march 10th, 2005, a guestimate of more than 70,000 people is all we have to get a glimpse of what's been going on there. but more than 70,000 is kind of vague thing to say. and the truth is, they'd know more but because of the horrible conditions in darfur, there is no real way for people to actually know how many have died. that's pretty sad.

[saturnine]

it was 4 years ago.. time to move on

[new york stock exchange]

If you ask me, I'd say that people should have come away realizing that people around the world (read: terrorists) hate America for their previous actions in foreign policy, not because they hate their "freedom" or (comparative lack of) values.

That's a typical left-wing reaction in the post-9/11 era. Reading that statement over and over I can't help but feel my fellow liberals have lost sight of something in their rush to oppose the "kill 'em all" neo-conservative approach as vigorously as possible: that you are attempting to ascribe rational motives to totally irrational acts.

 

Flying a plane into a building is not a logical act carried out by intelligent people hoping to effect policy change; it's illogical, desperate, frustrated, suicidal, nihilistic, self-destructive, and ultimately actually detrimental to the cause of those performing the act. To say it occured because of a few particularly instances of offensive American foreign policy is silly because terrorist actions actually do very little to change those policies.

 

So no, Islamic extremists don't hate America for "its freedom". They hate it, partially because of its foreign policy, but also because it is an abomination in their eyes. You are talking about people who in many cases do not feel that women should be allowed to so much as show their faces, who feel that homosexuality is a monstrosity and sex in general is offensive. One look at American television is enough to fuel their hatred. These aren't people who want America to change its foreign policy. They aren't interested in coexisting peacefully with America.

 

They don't want to share the planet with the United States -- or any other country that doesn't follow their particular code of ethics. America isn't the only country being targetted, it's just the one with the biggest bullseye on its back. If you think militant Islamists only hate America, then consider how much they actually have in common with the extreme right in the Bible Belt region -- and how liberal Europe is in comparison. If they hate New York, imagine how Amsterdam or Paris would look to them.

 

Some liberals, in their push for tolerance, feel that generalizing anti-American hatred in militant Islam as caused by something other than foreign policy is bigotry against Islam. But you have to draw a distinction between Islamic men and women of faith and militant Islam. We aren't talking about your average joe in Indonesia griping about American troops in Iraq, we're talking about someone who is part of a radical faction whose tenets basically equate to the absolute destruction of anything that doesn't adhere strictly to the Qu'ran and Hadith.

 

There are millions of Muslims who would be happy to live in a pluralistic society, or at least a pluralistic world, and don't care what anyone does as long as it doesn't effect them. But Islamic extremists are not those people. They want to kill you, and almost none of their reasons are actually justifiable.

[ecnarf]

But what reason do Islamic Fundamentalists have to hate Amsterdam? Other than disagreements within their "values" (or whatever you want to call it), Holland hasn't done anything to piss them off. The United States? They funded the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 80's, and then let them go when the Soviets were gone.

 

There's more to hating a country than hating their moral degradation, which isn't far from the argument that terrorists hate america because they hate freedom.

[new york stock exchange]

But what reason do Islamic Fundamentalists have to hate Amsterdam? Other than disagreements within their "values" (or whatever you want to call it), Holland hasn't done anything to piss them off. The United States? They funded the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 80's, and then let them go when the Soviets were gone.

Again you're ascribing logic to what is clearly not a logical thought process. Obviously America has the biggest target on its back; it's the largest and most obviously intrusive representative of perceived western values. And, as I admitted, it has singled itself out by intruding the most on the Arab world via its foreign policy.

 

But what I mean to say is that if America were somehow gone -- magically destroyed by a series of terrorist strikes -- Islamic fundamentalists would not be satisfied. Al-Qaeda would not just lay down their arms and say mission accomplished. Generally speaking, their thought process isn't "X did Y to me so I will do Z to them". Their thought process is basically nihilistic loathing towards anything other than what they know, a complete right-wing nutjob xenophobic reaction.

 

If that weren't true, their tactics wouldn't be suicidal and counterproductive. Rationalizing the terrorist thought process in terms that you or I find reasonable is foolish because there is no reasonable justification for flying planes into buildings, no matter where you go to church. 9/11 didn't help the cause of Muslims who find American foreign policy objectionable, and it didn't even help the cause of those who would like to see America destroyed. All it did was bring comfort to those who take pleasure in the suffering of people halfway around the world.

 

If their only grief with America were its foreign policy, and they were acting in a rational manner, then their objective would be to change that foreign policy. But 9/11 was not an event that could have changed American foreign policy. It had no rational goal. It was an act of hatred. And if you think that foreign policy alone could inspire that kind of hatred, you're crazy. 9/11 wasn't a strike at America's government, it was a strike at everyday people. That alone should make it clear: they don't just hate Bush, or Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz. They hate western society in general, and they get their rocks off by taking shots at it.

 

That doesn't justify American foreign policy that has been narcissistic, greedy and myopic. But I think it should make people think twice about either empathizing with the concerns of militant Islam or confusing militant Islam with the Islamic world at large. Because if you think that if the United States' cutting out the neoconservative bullshit would make terrorism disappear, you may one day be sorely disappointed.

 

There's more to hating a country than hating their moral degradation, which isn't far from the argument that terrorists hate america because they hate freedom.

And I would argue that there is more to hating a country than hating their foreign policy -- particularly when "hate" is actually a code word for "brutally slaughter anyone from that nation you can get your hands on". There has to be a loathing that goes beyond government officials and policy direction in order to make that kind of cold-blooded evil seem like a viable option.

[saturnine]

it was 4 years ago.. time to move on

wise man, you are

[ecnarf]

NYSE, you've hit the nail on the head there, but I think there's a flaw in the idea that terrorists (Islamic fundamentalists, whatever you want to call them) go around killing innocent people for the fun of it. In the criminal justice system, a motive is necessary to find a suspect. What was the motive of 9/11? To kill a whole bunch of people, yes, but since then, the United States has been caught up in two costly wars, a huge deficit and an economic recession. Is it too far a stretch to think that these types of things were in the minds of the hijackers when they were planning the attacks? Granted, they couldn't see into the future, but to think that the only goal of 9/11 (in a sick and twisted form of the word) was to kill people is to think far too little of Al Qaeda.

 

I won't deny that Islamic fundamentalists hate western society for our extreme moral degradation, but I find it hard to believe that to be the major cause of 9/11. As you said, the attacks were detrimental to whatever cause they stand for - why would they take such risks for a relatively minor reason? It doesn't make sense when you add it up; they despise our culture and think of us as a bunch of ignorant morons (not unlike how most westerners think of them), so they would try to kill thousands of us and just about guarantee a large military onslaught in return? You can't deny that American foreign policy in the past led straight to 9/11, "blowback" as the CIA calls it.

[new york stock exchange]

Islamic fundamentalists are basically the street gangs of the Middle East. Think South Central. So you're right that 9/11 was in a lot of ways retaliation for perceived past offenses -- just like a gang shooting is often in retaliation for perceived past offenses. But just like a gang shooting, there's a sort of inheirent criminality to it: the people you're talking about are criminals, and they do immoral and illegal things for a living. They may have specific motivation for a particular act but at the same time it runs a lot deeper than that.

 

congrats on writing more about 9/11 in one post than what has been written about it all year.

thx .

[Bizud]

Generally speaking, terrorist leaders have a much harder time recruiting suicide bombers if the recruit has a life worth living, and if the leader can't find a way to connect the target to the recruit's misery.

[no yu begin wher i end]

They usually go for the impoverished towns and set up schools where people know they can get shelter and food as long as they're students there, and eventually they develop a loyalty to said terrorist organization and said terrorist organization's cause. A lot of the time, the governments can't do much because they don't have much to offer.

[new york stock exchange]

Which is pretty much how it is over here, or anywhere for that matter.

[no yu begin wher i end]

Yeah, with street gangs and all that.