From 9/11 to 'The War on Terror': The tragedy multiplies...

The fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks gives us enough time between when the event occured, and the present day to form an opinion on how the world has changed since then.

Obviously, 9/11 changed the United States, but what has really changed the world has been the erroneous US response to September 11, especially the war in Iraq.

From the 'easily won' war - that still rages - in Afghanistan to the pre-emptive strike against Iraq, the world is now a less safe place than it was 5 years ago.

The Bali bombs, the train attack in Madrid, and the London Underground attacks are the most well documented terrorist acts, but there have been numerous others. These have resulted in the deaths of hundreds - perhaps even thousands - of people.

Then, there's the current loss of life total for 'The War on Terror': the deaths number in the tens of thousands...

Of course, I am fully aware that 'The War on Terror' is the response to 9/11, but my argument is that it is the wrong one. It is also grossly disproportionate. A comparison of the number of civilian deaths shows this to be true.

Then, there is the culture of fear that the US and British governments seek to invoke in subtly(?) convenient moments. Machiavellian? Without a doubt. Add to this the gradual - but continual - erosion of personal freedoms, and the defecit of 'The War on Terror' begins to mirror that of the US' budget!

Another fallacy of the US response is that it somehow believes (publicly, at least) that by bombing all the reproachable countries it will somehow decrease the breeding of terrorists! Hahaha...explain that one to me again! It is precisely this sort of behavior by the US that has been a factor in the creation of the problem in the first place!

Five years ago yesterday was a black day for humanity, yet the US response has made the world even darker today.

Anyway, thoughts?

My thoughts are in level with yours. We are one. Namaste.

....

I do agree with what you say, completely. However, I don't think I necessarily believe 9/11 was a black day for humanity. Perhaps in the way US reacted to it, might have been bad for everyone else, but the actual act was a black day for America, not humanity.

A lot of people have been killed by America's invasion and bombs, yet we don't hold a minute of silence for a single one of those people.

On the rest of the post - I absolutely concur.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I do agree with what you say, completely. However, I don't think I necessarily believe 9/11 was a black day for humanity. Perhaps in the way US reacted to it, might have been bad for everyone else, but the actual act was a black day for America, not humanity.

A lot of people have been killed by America's invasion and bombs, yet we don't hold a minute of silence for a single one of those people.

That's what I was saying; the 'black day for humanity' on Sept. 11 now encompasses the world as a result of what has followed it. In other words, we have all been affected by Sept. 11 because the US response to it has affected us all.

I totally agree with you Floo. That first post was an excellent diagnosis of the current situation.

Although I believe that you touched upon it, what amazes me is the military action the US has taken to "correct" the problem instead of looking at many of their foreign policies that helped ignite the problems that they are (as is the rest of the world) currently experiencing.

The whole "war on terror" concept is as misguided and as prone to failure as the "war on drugs". You cannot declare war on an ideology. Well I guess you can, cause they have, but it's rather futile.

If the US had of been committed to staying in Afghanistan and rooting out Osama, Al Qaeda and their Taliban cronies the rest of the world would have taken them seriously. The foray into Iraq and the inability to accept their own mistakes that created this global culture of hate and suspicion has only served to escalate the situation, and that kinda worries me a bit.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
The fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks gives us enough time between when the event occured, and the present day to form an opinion on how the world has changed since then.

Obviously, 9/11 changed the United States, but what has really changed the world has been the erroneous US response to September 11, especially the war in Iraq.

From the 'easily won' war - that still rages - in Afghanistan to the pre-emptive strike against Iraq, the world is now a less safe place than it was 5 years ago.

The Bali bombs, the train attack in Madrid, and the London Underground attacks are the most well documented terrorist acts, but there have been numerous others. These have resulted in the deaths of hundreds - perhaps even thousands - of people.

Then, there's the current loss of life total for 'The War on Terror': the deaths number in the tens of thousands...

Of course, I am fully aware that 'The War on Terror' is the response to 9/11, but my argument is that it is the wrong one. It is also grossly disproportionate. A comparison of the number of civilian deaths shows this to be true.

Then, there is the culture of fear that the US and British governments seek to invoke in subtly(?) convenient moments. Machiavellian? Without a doubt. Add to this the gradual - but continual - erosion of personal freedoms, and the defecit of 'The War on Terror' begins to mirror that of the US' budget!

Another fallacy of the US response is that it somehow believes (publicly, at least) that by bombing all the reproachable countries it will somehow decrease the breeding of terrorists! Hahaha...explain that one to me again! It is precisely this sort of behavior by the US that has been a factor in the creation of the problem in the first place!

Five years ago yesterday was a black day for humanity, yet the US response has made the world even darker today.

Anyway, thoughts?

Oh

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Although I believe that you touched upon it, what amazes me is the military action the US has taken to "correct" the problem instead of looking at many of their foreign policies that helped ignite the problems that they are (as is the rest of the world) currently experiencing.

Yeah, but I guess that an alternative action wouldn't have sold many tanks, bombs, war-planes, and oil pipelines...

Originally posted by KharmaDog
If the US had of been committed to staying in Afghanistan and rooting out Osama, Al Qaeda and their Taliban cronies the rest of the world would have taken them seriously. The foray into Iraq and the inability to accept their own mistakes that created this global culture of hate and suspicion has only served to escalate the situation, and that kinda worries me a bit.

I like that you said "a bit".

Anyway, thoughts?

Everyone takes note of a the secondary cause rather than first cause of what is happening in the world post 9-11. What really trigger this whole change in the world? A few extremeist that took it upon themselves to commit an act of terrorism agaisn't a powerful nation. Even if the War in Iraq is wrong. There was bound to be a reaction. This entire reaction would have been avoid it all completely if those extremeists would have chosen other means than terrorism to make their beliefs public. When people say it's the Americans fault it's just another example of trying to pass GO and collect without rolling the dice.

why does everyone act as if 9/11 was the beginning of something?...it wasn't

while al-qaeda like to pretend that they have some holy duty to drive the infidels from muslim holy land...the fact remains that the members which initiated al-qaeda are former mujahadeen who were trained and armed by the CIA and them forgotten about when the soviet union fell

if we hadn't treated them as disposable pawns back in the 70's and 80's then it's most likely that the ideology and the military knowhow would never have came together as they did

Originally posted by jaden101
why does everyone act as if 9/11 was the beginning of something?...it wasn't

haven't you heard? the u.s. is the center of the universe, and before our soil was invaded by terrorists, it just didnt matter. silly you

Originally posted by PVS
haven't you heard? the u.s. is the center of the universe, and before our soil was invaded by terrorists, it just didnt matter. silly you

doh *slaps self in face*

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Everyone takes note of a the secondary cause rather than first cause of what is happening in the world post 9-11. What really trigger this whole change in the world?

I suggest you look further back than the occurence of 9/11 and look at all the complexities involved in this issue.

The bombing of the twin towers was not a trigger, it was (in the minds' of the perpitrators) reprisal and the culmination of years of ignorance, arrogance and poor foriegn policy. The fact that it could have been prevented, the fact that many administrations along with Bush's bear some responsibility and the fact that not much has changed in regards to foriegn policy issues makes what happened on 9/11 as horrible today as it did 5 years ago.

I remember watching the TV when the 9/11 happened. I also remember people guessing who did it - there are so many possible suspects, I remember them naming them all.

The matter of the fact is, America made a lot of mistakes in the past. If they haven't got so damn obsessed with the communist...perhaps a lot of things that happened - wouldn't have.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I suggest you look further back than the occurence of 9/11 and look at all the complexities involved in this issue.

The bombing of the twin towers was not a trigger, it was (in the minds' of the perpitrators) reprisal and the culmination of years of ignorance, arrogance and poor foriegn policy. The fact that it could have been prevented, the fact that many administrations along with Bush's bear some responsibility and the fact that not much has changed in regards to foriegn policy issues makes what happened on 9/11 as horrible today as it did 5 years ago.

I suggest you read my entire post and pay attention to this part:

This entire reaction would have been avoid it all completely if those extremeists would have chosen other means than terrorism

No matter how far back in history you want to go. They still chose to commit acts of terrorism. They chose to fight. That's the key point. Had they chosen other means I'm sure we would not be in this mess right now.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
They chose to fight. That's the key point. Had they chosen other means I'm sure we would not be in this mess right now.

I fear for a world that looks at this issue as simply as this.

Of course, I am fully aware that 'The War on Terror' is the response to 9/11, but my argument is that it is the wrong one. It is also grossly disproportionate. A comparison of the number of civilian deaths shows this to be true

I keep seeing this word disproportionate used frequently now. It seems to be the PC term for overly aggressive or large amounts of destructive force when used in discussion of conflict and describing damage.

Whats an acceptable amount of loss when putting terrorist acts into the equation?

Originally posted by Soleran
Whats an acceptable amount of loss when putting terrorist acts into the equation?

A good question. I know attacking a country that had nothing to do with it should be considered unacceptable at least.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
The fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks gives us enough time between when the event occured, and the present day to form an opinion on how the world has changed since then.

Obviously, 9/11 changed the United States, but what has really changed the world has been the erroneous US response to September 11, especially the war in Iraq.

From the 'easily won' war - that still rages - in Afghanistan to the pre-emptive strike against Iraq, the world is now a less safe place than it was 5 years ago.

The Bali bombs, the train attack in Madrid, and the London Underground attacks are the most well documented terrorist acts, but there have been numerous others. These have resulted in the deaths of hundreds - perhaps even thousands - of people.

Then, there's the current loss of life total for 'The War on Terror': the deaths number in the tens of thousands...

Of course, I am fully aware that 'The War on Terror' is the response to 9/11, but my argument is that it is the wrong one. It is also grossly disproportionate. A comparison of the number of civilian deaths shows this to be true.

Then, there is the culture of fear that the US and British governments seek to invoke in subtly(?) convenient moments. Machiavellian? Without a doubt. Add to this the gradual - but continual - erosion of personal freedoms, and the defecit of 'The War on Terror' begins to mirror that of the US' budget!

Another fallacy of the US response is that it somehow believes (publicly, at least) that by bombing all the reproachable countries it will somehow decrease the breeding of terrorists! Hahaha...explain that one to me again! It is precisely this sort of behavior by the US that has been a factor in the creation of the problem in the first place!

Five years ago yesterday was a black day for humanity, yet the US response has made the world even darker today.

Anyway, thoughts?

Absolutely.

Every time I read the national news I'm reminded of how many of our service men and women are being killed needlessly. When are Iraq and Afghanistan going to be "liberated?" It's been 5 years now and things have only seemed to have gotten worse. It's bad enough that our soldiers are dying but it's even worse that for every time one of them are killed 10 or so Iragi or Afghani civilians go with them.

Originally posted by Soleran
I keep seeing this word disproportionate used frequently now. It seems to be the PC term for overly aggressive or large amounts of destructive force when used in discussion of conflict and describing damage.

Whats an acceptable amount of loss when putting terrorist acts into the equation?

I agree... It'd be like you poking a grizzly bear with a sharp stick and then crying that the bear used a "disproportionate" amount of force when it mauls you for poking it. Simply put, some people are not happy when one side is a more effective killer and more effective at waging war, doesn't necessarily matter if the losing side is the one who started it.

Originally posted by meep-meep
Absolutely.

Every time I read the national news I'm reminded of how many of our service men and women are being killed needlessly. When are Iraq and Afghanistan going to be "liberated?" It's been 5 years now and things have only seemed to have gotten worse. It's bad enough that our soldiers are dying but it's even worse that for every time one of them are killed 10 or so Iragi or Afghani civilians go with them.

Iraq is a hell hole no doubt and I wouldn't want to be there, but it isn't as bad as one would think only reading one side of the news... I personally have a friend there right now (my best friend of 18 years and he isn't just a grunt in the field), he can vouch that many of these 'horror' stories are highly embellished by the press. Did you know that Iraq took over Military command, that's a positive step right? But you do not see this story in the headlines, why you ask, because 'horror' stories sell more. My advice, read the news from the far left to the far right and everything in between, then sprinkle it with some foreigh news, BBC is my favorite for that.

Well i blame tony blair for the war in iraq . He said it had WMD what a liar he is !