Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »
Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: September 11th - a broad retrospective on the response to that day
Jabbadabbado 
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
 Registered: Mar '99
7388_Throne Room
Date Posted: 10/16/07 11:48am Subject: RE: September 11th - a broad retrospective on the response to that day
For six years or so, I've been railing about how 9/11 turned America into a "nation of p***ies." As eloquent a phrase as this most assuredly is, I've finally found someone who's able to express this idea for polite conversation:

David Foster Wallace
Just Asking
from the Atlantic Monthly, 11/07

Are some things still worth dying for? Is the America idea one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, "sacrifices on the alter of freedom"? In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life - sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money, but of our personal safety and comfort?

In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precuations, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100 percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?

Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price? Is monstrousness why no serious public figure now will speak of the delusory tradeoff of liberty for safety that Ben Franklin warned about more than 200 years ago? What exactly has changed between Franklin's time and ours? Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice - either of a) some portion of safety or b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?

In the absence of such a conversation, can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer - are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they're worth it? Was there no such debate because we're not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don't even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?

 

-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
nancyallen 
Registered: Nov '07
41189_Aayla Secura
Date Posted: 11/26/07 9:54pm Subject: RE: September 11th - a broad retrospective on the response to that day
I have a few thoughts to share about this. Now I'm not going to quote the entire thread but posts that had jumped out at me.

Ender_Sai posted:
Howdy all.


Howdy, you a Texan or something? Which area?

Ender_Sai posted:
* The war in Afghanistan


What a lot of people don't realize with Afghanistan is that the ruling Taliban are allied with Al Qaeda, the rightful Afghanis were under their rule and part of the Taliban's terrorist actions were using Afghanistan for a number of terrorist training camps.

Ender_Sai posted:
* The war in Iraq


This was a mistake, because of what it's done to the world. All the reasons they made for it, I think it was to make others not want to do anything to America. Was it about the oil? I would say yes in that Saddam could have brought the West to it's knees in controlling the oil.

Ender_Sai posted:
* The increased awareness of the violent Islamic fundamentalist movement


Now why this awareness wasn't more out in the open I don't know. No way is this an attack on Islam, as it is the violent minority we are concentrating on. The actions and hate speech of these groups and individuals before and after 9/11 should have awakened the world to how much of a threat they are.

Ender_Sai posted:
* The awareness of "siloing" of information and a lack of communication between government agencies


Again, this makes no sense to me. The turf wars between the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and any other alphabet soup agency has sadly made their primary mission (saving lives) secondary to seeking political and financial clout.

Ender_Sai posted:
* Stronger reiterated ties between America's two key allies, Britain and Australia


Especially after attacks on the London Underground and the Sari club in Bali that killed 88 Australians. It would be fair to say that ex Prime Minister Howard would not have kept troops in Iraq even if Bush ordered him out had this not happened.

Ender_Sai posted:
* Awareness of the instablity in key areas that are susceptible to violent Islamic fundamentalist influence (North Africa, southern Middle East, Cebu region of the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Indonesia etc)


Shouldn't Africa (Somalia) and the Middle East (Israel\Palestine, Islamic\transglobal terrorism) have been identified as cause for concern? Sadly this is another example of knowing, or acting, now when we should have known and acted before.

Ender_Sai posted:

* Rapid upscale in US defence capacity including increased spending, advancement of technologies and a revaluation of the means of achieving US force projection


I think they go about it all wrong in terms of relying on brute military force as opposed to what can be done in terms of low scale, special forces strikes against terrorism, and terrorism in and of itself as opposed to any one nation.

Ender_Sai posted:
* The introduction of torture and other extreme interrogation techniques (and as a subset the practise of extraordinary rendition)


I'm not sure how much we know about Guantanamo and the interrogation\torture that is meant to occur is fact, but I do think it is telling that we have 1. Prisoners confessing to crimes just so it will all end, whether or not they are guilty not being the issue over that this is the only evidence is a coerced confession, and 2. That we have situations such as Abu Ghraib in that what Private England and her cohorts, however far up the chain of command it went, saw fit to do this, considering that this had nothing to do with trying to force information or anything like that, it was done just for the sake of it.

Ender_Sai posted:
* The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba


I would say rather what happens inside of them, if they are tortured or if they are very well looked after (to the point where new, untouched Qu'rans were hung in plastic from cell roofs, as one source reported). What works should stay. What doesn't, such as a crying praying prisoner being viciously bashed by England for no reason, needs to be exposed.

G-FETT posted:
From my perspective, post 9/11 was a golden opportunity for the west and middle east to reach out to one another and come to a greater understanding.


I don't think this would have worked because the people behind the attacks, they are not interested in peace, they are interested in Jihad. They want the West to go to war against Islam, they want Muslims to be portrayed by their actions so that they would be targeted and then retaliate violently to keep the war going.

G-FETT posted:
The greatest tragedy of everything thats happened, post September 11th, is that the US administration squandered the legacy of global support they recieved in aftermath of the downfall of the Twin Towers. A legacy that really could have changed the world for the better and ensured that those who died, didn't die in vein.


QFT. Iraq was by far the biggest mistake, wrong if you prefer to label it as a wrong or evil, for not only has support very much shifted away from America Iraq, and Guantanamo, their interference with countries such as France and Germany, numerous other incidents, has only given credence and reason for anti Americanism and even terrorism, even though in my eyes that is never an excuse in some eyes it is justified.

Darth_Guy posted:
But was the goodwill genuine or a mix of sympathy (perhaps a measure anti-American but with no desire to see people die) and "Oh ****, they're gonna be pissed, let's make nice" and just another bandwagon? I don't really have a position either way, since the answer would have been clear were it not for Iraq.


I would say a bit of both, after 9/11 definitely sympathy and a willingness to help, and then after Bush saying that we are with him or the terrorists having to side woith him, or perhaps more fairly a case of repaying the debt for America's actions (World War II for example)

Ender_Sai posted:
Due respect DM, you're not really what I'd call an objective observer of the intentions of other states, and so I wonder if you're not allowing some of that subjectivity to creep in here?


I'm not going to pass judgment on what DM objective views are, but I do think it is worth considering what bias one might have in what they say. Michael Moore for example, he hates Bush, hates America, and so his views would be biased against them.

Blue_Jedi33 posted:
For example if they include in the war on terror the invasion of Iran and the draft, some Amercians might just rebel saying 9/11 use is being overblown by the government now in it's use to justify it's actions.


I'm not sure if this is still in effect but America weren't allowed to fight against domestic terrorism or domestic armed forces. Still, try saying that in this day and age where every protest and every military and law enforcement action comes under intense scrutiny.

Ender_Sai posted:
Is it just me, or has the Bush Administration unintentionally and through hubris, made America and the world less safe through invading Iraq?

E_S


It's not just you. Iraq principally has brought the ire of the world against America and not only has there been terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks against Western interests for this very reason it gives justification in the eyes of some for these actions, or it provides terrorists with what they and some others see as a valid reason for terrorist acts and hate speech ('uncovered women deserve to be raped' being an example).

 

-----signature-----
Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Espaldapalabras 
Registered: Aug '05
46173_Robot Chicken: Ackbar Cereal
Date Posted: 11/26/07 10:16pm Subject: RE: September 11th - a broad retrospective on the response to that day

nancyallen posted:

Ender_Sai posted:
Howdy all.


Howdy, you a Texan or something? Which area?


He's um, from the Texas of the south. tongue

 

-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
SuperWatto 
Registered: Sep '00
6870_Watto
Date Posted: 11/27/07 3:29am Subject: RE: September 11th - a broad retrospective on the response to that day
Lowbacca, as I understand it, Fox TV reported on the invasion of Iraq under the name 'War On Terror'. Also, Iraq was one of the states in the 'axis of evil' from Bush's post-9-11 bloodlust speech. This probably (and probably intentionally) made people assume there was some link between those states. What's an axis without a link?

I'm not saying they're good reasons to tie Saddam to Iraq, just saying that I think that the public at large didn't really know the facts and just put two and two together.

 

-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK
http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com
frustrating you with sound
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
DarthBoba 
Registered: Jun '00
8187_Luke Skywalker
Date Posted: 12/2/07 5:32am Subject: RE: September 11th - a broad retrospective on the response to that day
I happened to be out in the middle of the woods at a Job Corps training site with no Internet or even TV when 9/11 happened, so my information(or more precisely, a bunch of 17-24-year-olds making WAGs*) was whacky to say the least:

1. We'd nuked Baghdad.

2. Osama issued a statement saying he'd had nothing to do with 9/11.

3. The President had declared the draft to be back in effect.

So, yeah. tongue

*WAG: Wild-*** guess.

as for me personally, 9/11 was a big part of me joining the army. As a double-deployer to OIF, I can tell you that things do seem somewhat better here now than my last time.


 

-----signature-----
Upstate NY: First-World Country,
Third-World Infrastructure.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Previous | Next | Reload
Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »
© 2008 IGN Entertainment, Inc (6.08.17.2300, ASPNET8) 0.172