A few questions for people here

[NJDevil]

As I was reading over several posts on the board recently, I realized that people view the events of 9/11 very differently.

In short, how do you feel the 9/11 attacks change the US, and do you agree with that exact change?

In addition, do you feel that terrorists hate our freedoms or hate our policies or some combination of both?

Another one for you guys to think about, do you feel that we are fault, and that our actions in the past lead to some/all/none of the motivation for attacking the US and its interests.

I wish that OP's had the power to block certain words from appearing in their posts, so I guess I"ll just make a request. Please don't generalize or use words like, "liberal, leftist, commie, neo-con, repug, etc." to talk about small groups of people. You can say, the left is less aggressive in terms of foreign policy regarding terrorism, because that is the general feeling among people in the left. (ie, they support more diplomacy, etc.)

Thanks!

 

[dmcowen674]

9-11 was tragic no doubt about that BUT...

It was not a screaming squadron of Enemy planes streaming into our airspace taking out everything in sight the way the current Administration depicts 9-11 you would think that was the case.

 

[steepelrot]

mmmmmm umkay.


You just earned a month away from the forums MCWAR

 

[Emultra]

First of all, what one "feels" is right is completely irrelevant unless it is in cue with reality. "Feeling" that terrorists will respond to diplomacy will not make it so, and practically they of course will not. Then again, it might just have been the word of your choice. Nevertheless, if the terrorists could be talked out of it, they wouldn't have done it in the first place; nor would they be where they are right now.

"Liberal" is a hijacked term in the US and so has lost any relevant meaning. "Leftist" is a relativistic term for someone who is more collectivist than someone else. "Commie" stands for Communist, but is arguably more used against Democrats, who of course support socialism in a way that is ultimately is not very from textbook Communism.


But, to get back to your questions: there seems to have been dramatic changes due to the attack. In the media, culture, political arenas and so on. Costs that can be attributed to this are very high.

If you think about what freedom is (not anarchy, but liberty in rights), you will find that anyone who hates freedom must be evil. The United States would not be a threat to the Arab terrorists (Arab as in geographically, not ethnically) if they were harmless.

In fact, to use a conversed version of one of Usama Bin Ladin's lines: that explains why America doesn't attack, for example, Sweden.
Sweden, of course, is a collectivist police state that does not at all respect individual rights. But it doesn't, for the moment being, pose a military threat to the US. Iran, North Korea and so on certainly do.

The actual motivation of those who would seek to destroy property and kill innocents is not all that important; the words and actions they convey are motivation enough for us to stop them. After all, when someone is hell-bent on destroying you, there can be but one survivor. At most.

It is obvious that leaders of America have made significant errors in judgement at important crossroads in history. Frequently, it has been a variation of the false alternative: they chose to destroy the Nazi's, not only keeping the Communists but using their help to do it. Communists were fought with the help of subsequent Arab terrorists.

What is sorely needed now is a stand that does not make compromises; one that does not keep one contemporarily lesser threat in order to destroy what is percieved as a greater threat, but a stand that recognizes the unacceptable situation of living under mortal threat at all. This would be true even without ABC weapons that can store a city's destruction in a truckload, with them now, not much remains to be said; all the more remains to actually be done.

 

[Rainsford]

9/11 changed the US in the sense that we now feel extremely threatened by outside forces. Now part of that is true, 9/11 certainly showed us that we do have enemies, and that they can hurt us. And we certainly need to deal with that. The part I don't think is right is that we responsed, and continue to respond, as if the terrorists represnet a dire threat to our national survival. Again, we certainly need to deal with them, future 9/11 type events are preventable, but the terrorists are not Hitler, they don't have the power to really threaten our way of life the way powerful nations do. I don't think a lot of people are fully considering the magnitude of the threat they represent. Our response is not in proportion to the actual threat.

Now, as to the "why" of the terrorist attack, I'd say it is a combination of our values and our actions. Our past in the Middle East has done nothing to help the way we are viewed there. But just as important, I think, is that we represent the opposite of what people like Osama bin Laden want. As much as religion seems to be exerting just a little bit too much control in this country, a lot of "leaders" in the Middle East want theocracies. And our way of life is a threat to theirs. Societies with more freedom can tolerate those with less, but the opposite is not true.

Does this mean I think we were at fault because of our policies? I don't know, it's easy to look at it now and see how things happened. But did we have good motives at the time? And more importantly, is it reasonable to expect these results of our actions? We can blame the rape victim for wearing a short skirt, and maybe that was partially the cause. But it's not her fault. I hesitate to accuse our past leaders of not having enough of an ability to see into the future, because nobody is really good at that. On the other hand, we have a long history of treating the Jews with respect and not showing the Muslims the same, something that pretty clearly would cause problems.

 

[Emultra]

You are partially right, Rainsford, but you are mistaken in believing that they are not as significant threat as powerful nations. One of the obvious reasons for that is that they exist and success due to the very assistance of nations (governments).

And at best, they have the potential of getting atomic weapons. Hitler never had that.


I will uphold, though, the fact that as long as the military threats of the Arab and Asian worlds are contained enough, Europe is the worst threat to longterm liberty ever. Democracy and socialism [collectivism] (i.e. the abolition of individual rights and the rule of law etc.) are a much greater menace o freedom than any super aggressive, albeit short-term destructive, regime is. It could truly be the thousand year reich, one that might not be recovered from.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Emultra
You are partially right, Rainsford, but you are mistaken in believing that they are not as significant threat as powerful nations. One of the obvious reasons for that is that they exist and success due to the very assistance of nations (governments).

And at best, they have the potential of getting atomic weapons. Hitler never had that.

Perhaps I should explain what I meant. Terrorists have the ability to cause isolated acts of destruction, maybe even very significant attacks if they had nuclear weapons, but they lack the resources and manpower to mount any kind of long term, strategic campaign to "defeat" the US in the same way that nationstates do. That is why they are terrorists, terror is their weapon. And it's a pretty effective weapon when you get right down to it. But it can't actually accomplish the same thing an invading army could.

Look at 9/11. It was certainly a damaging attack that resulted in a lot of deaths, but it was more a psychological attack than a strategic one. It was the result of years of work on the part of the terrorists, it stretched their resources and abilities, and it really stood out because it was so unusual. They had no opposition at the time, they had years to prepare, and they picked targets that didn't fight back. And the BEST they were able to accomplish was killing 3,000 people and destroying two big buildings. I don't mean to make light of what they did, it was certainly a tragedy and a great loss. But 9/11 is not the kind of thing that could really bring down this country, the terrorists simply do not have the ability to defeat us.

Look at it from the other side, what events could transpire that would result in the terrorists "winning"? I don't see a realistic scenario there.

I will uphold, though, the fact that as long as the military threats of the Arab and Asian worlds are contained enough, Europe is the worst threat to longterm liberty ever. Democracy and socialism [collectivism] (i.e. the abolition of individual rights and the rule of law etc.) are a much greater menace o freedom than any super aggressive, albeit short-term destructive, regime is. It could truly be the thousand year reich, one that might not be recovered from.

I don't know about that. It sounds too much like the great threat of communism we were worried about years ago. The problem is that ideology isn't a threat unless it's spread by force. Assuming Europe has ideas that threaten liberty (not that I think they do), how would they hurt us?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
As I was reading over several posts on the board recently, I realized that people view the events of 9/11 very differently.

In short, how do you feel the 9/11 attacks change the US, and do you agree with that exact change?

Yes, they changed us by making us even more xenophobic & insular than we already were. We shrank back to conservative Christianity, instead of opening our eyes.

Originally posted by: NJDevil
In addition, do you feel that terrorists hate our freedoms or hate our policies or some combination of both?

I don't think 'terrorists' hate our freedoms anymore than do other extremely conservative Christian and Jewish groups. They hate our policies, primarily the ones that prop up horribly repressive dictatorships in exchange for cheap SUV juice. Would you want a foreign nation having a huge military base down the road from your home?

Originally posted by: NJDevil
Another one for you guys to think about, do you feel that we are fault, and that our actions in the past lead to some/all/none of the motivation for attacking the US and its interests.

Honestly, yes, to a large extent. Do our policies warrant wholesale slaughter of people who basically just get up and go to work every day? Hell no. The 'terrorists' should be striking against their own governments in whatever form they deem necessary. No American should dismiss the option of violent, armed uprisings against your own government. We celebrate our own violent uprising every July 4th.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

i think, just like any other american tragedy, that the victims and the american public have been whored out and duped to further clandestine agendas.