Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| The politics of September 11 |
| 09.10.04 (8:23 pm) [edit] |
|
Tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the terrorist attacks that changed our modern world. Much time will likely be spent reflecting on that day in 2001, highlighting personal and emotional stories. And this is somewhat important. Remembering those who lost their lives in the attacks, and for what reason, serves as a chilling reminder of the fragility of world politics. As was done in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, a strong call for a mentality of war will be made. For me, remembering September 11, 2001 evokes the exact same feelings now as I had then. My first semester at college, I had class at 8:30 every Tuesday morning. Thankfully, this excruciatingly boring class often let out well before 9:30, and that particular morning we were free to go a little before 9. I went back to my room and climbed into bed. The next thing I knew, my roommate was on the phone sounding upset, frantic, and generally as though something major had happened. When I rolled over and looked at her, she just told me to go downstairs- it was on tv. Clueless, I went downstairs and sat down, trying to grasp what I was seeing on the television. The news reporters were talking about a plane flying into the World Trade Center. At that time, they were even still discussing the possibility of it merely being an accident. I was stunned. After a few minutes of watching the footage of a smoky and fiery World Trade Center, there was suddenly another plane in the shot. I watched, feeling helpless, this plane as it turned and flew into the second tower. No one knew quite what to do or how to react. Another of my roommates had been telling us about how she had worked right by the trade centers over the summer, and had an uncle who worked in one of the towers that was hit. The whole morning, she tried calling him, but could not get through. Later, we heard that another plane had hit part of the Pentagon and a fourth plane had crashed in Pennsylvania- only a few hours from the school I was attending. Classes were cancelled for the day, and everything on campus was solemn. The next day, some students organized a candle-light vigil. At first, the focus was on unity and mourning a national loss. Quickly, it shifted to anger and revenge. Naturally, anyone who saw the planes crash into the World Trade Centers that morning felt angered. Revenge was called for by our President. Once it became clear that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, there were many calls for bombing Afghanistan. I was one of the few against this action. My feeling was that, though retaliation may very well be warranted and necessary, indescriminately attacking an enemy within a nation would not only be ineffective, but would do little other than guarantee more violence. Today, three years later, my feeling has not changed. And neither has that of the President. Well, except that now he favors attacking sovereign nations that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, rather than going after bin Laden. But, at any rate, the President's prime motivation is to fight terrorism with great force. He calls for support in this 'war on terrorism' based on the emotional responses to 9/11. And all too often, he gets this support. So many are convinced that it is necessary to support the President no matter what, or they are supporting terrorism. Bush and his supporters, followers, and campaigners promote the message of only one possibility on this issue- you're either with Bush or you don't care about America. Unfortunately, dissent is viewed as a weakness. The assertion that, since terrorists attacked the US, the US must attack terrorism, is false. Terrorism is extremely broad in scope, and attempting to wage war on all terrorism only breeds terrorist action. Going after bin Laden and al Qaeda would have been logical after 9/11, but not with brute force alone, and not by dropping bombs throughout Afghanistan. Strategically seeking out bin Laden and others known to be active members of al Qaeda would have been the best and most effective way to thwart terrorism and to avenge the 9/11 attacks. President Bush, however, declared war on terrorism. He used this as a political ploy. Maintaining that the terrorists brought war to us, the President coaxed the nation into going along with his war. But he neglected the realities of the situation. He has been able to use an emotional cue to gain support and to weed out criticism. Those of us critical of Bush's war(s) are made out to be un-American. Many emotional accounts of lost loved ones in the attacks of 9/11 evoke a sense of anger and resolve among Americans. Bush uses this to his advantage. Politically, September 11 is used as an irrefutable source of power for Bush- it is very difficult to challenge the President when such an emotional and nationally uniting subject is involved. When emotional issues that concern the entire nation are brought up, often is the case that emotion overrides rational thought. The unity brought about by this national tragedy serves to give Bush unquestioned leadership- something he has not demonstrated deserving. I am hopeful that while the nation mourns once more the tragedy of 9/11, rational thought will not be discarded, and the talking points from the Bush camp will not resonate among the people. |
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 09.10.04 (5:26 pm)
Exactly. Great blog.
Even when Bush talks about Iraq or the economy he seems to find some way to mention 9/11.
posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 09.13.04 (8:52 pm)
as usual, you are very cogent, persuasive, and thoughtful with your comments on important issues. although you and i don't completely agree on this subject and don't interpret some actions of our leaders the same way, i respect your position as reasoned and thoughtful and well within the range that equally patriotic american's can agree to disagree.
i do, however, take one exception to your comments. you infer that strong reactions to terrorism "breed more terrorism". i would repsectfully suggest that whatever your opinion on the current administrations policies, it is a serious factual error to infer that terrorism is in anyway related to the type of logic you are applying. islamic terrorists strike anything and everything that they see as an obstacle to their own narrow brand of theocracy and rule by fundamentalist interpretations of islamic law that a majority of muslims do not support. osama bin laden's philosophy of using terrorism as his main strategic tool to further his fantasy of global islamic theocracy (which he believes is pre-destined by Allah). What we do or don't do based on OUR values has little impact on the ultimate agenda of this minority sect of islamic extremist.
i'm not a bush fan or kerry hater! i just feel its important for everyone on all sides to more accurately consider the agenda of the enemies of freedom and democracy. we may choose NOT to fight them but it is not a "choice" to consider them an enemy. tyranny is always an enemy to freedom regardless of the political winds of the day.
thanks for stating your case and allowing me to consider your thoughtful comments!
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 09.14.04 (12:16 pm)
But if we are not to fight terrorism, are we to do nothing and wait to be hit again?
I think what we did in Afghanistan was good. Getting sidetracked before we were finished with them wasn't, but we needed to go in there and do what was necissary. My qualm is that Osama (yo mama, osama!) is still out there.\
When the SS. Cole was bombed, it was Al Qaida that did it. We really didn't do anything in it's aftermath. Then they did something worse on 9-11 because we didn't get the message.
I guess my question is, you (dragonbait22) are in charge of the united states on the day of 9-11. What is your response to that and the terrorism?
There is a time for inaction and there is a time for action.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 09.14.04 (1:16 pm)
Reply to: kurtmaddox
You are right that our actions have little to do with influencing those of the terrorists. Terrorist groups such as al Qaeda have a strong structural system that has at its heart an educational (brainwashing) foundation. Terrorists are taught fundamental beliefs and are trained to maintain a great deal of resolve. That is why they do the things they do.
However, what your point neglected was the influence America's actions can have on individuals or nations that may be sympathetic to Islamic radicals and/or terrorist groups. My point was that the Arab world would be more likely to unite behind bin Laden in an effort to defeat the US if we used such massive violence in Afghanistan. Our attacks did not seem as though they were aimed solely at al Qaeda, but, to many in the Muslim world, they were viewed as war against Islam. Turning this into a holy war would surely encourage terrorist action, because many would view bin Laden as the leader against the US. This is how our actions do influence terrorist action- not by changing the way they do things, that is already set, but by encouraging support of their actions among others in the Middle East.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 09.14.04 (1:24 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
I'm not saying we shouldn't fight terrorism, I just take issue with the way this President has waged war on terrorism. Had I been in charge on 9/11, I would have gone after bin Laden. But not in the way Dubya did. Random attacks by our military in Afghanistan were no way to defeat terrorism. And, as you can see, they were not even successful in capturing bin Laden. I believe the President's actions were hastily contrived and that developing a systematic plan to ensure the capture of bin Laden as well as other members of al Qaeda would have been the best course of action. The President felt pressed to ease the minds of Americans by taking immediate action. I too would have taken immediate action, but not by military force alone. The issue of terrorism is obviously a complicated one. The motives of the terrorists must be looked at and the consequences of our actions in our dealing with the issue must be considered. As I stated previously, indescriminate violence in the Arab world only encourages support for terrorism and strengthens the resolve of terrorists.
And yes, action definitely should have been taken long ago- before 9/11 and before the USS Cole attack. Again, this action, if I was in charge, would have involved systematic planning and developing the means necessary to actually get to Osama. Sometimes strategy is more important than force.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 09.14.04 (1:56 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
Ah, that's more clear. Thank you.
Forgive me if you already answered this and I'm still confused, but this puzzles me:
"I too would have taken immediate action, but not by military force alone."
What would be the alternative besides proper/appropriate strategic military force?
posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 09.15.04 (5:30 pm)
your points are very well-taken! this frustrating and critical subject will occupy the thinking of all thoughtful and freedom loving people for the forseeable future.
