9/11: Did It Work?

I am not in favor of what happened, and I am just as angry that we did not allow anything positive to come about from the tragedy. It seems now that to engage in any criticism of the US is unpatriotic, even though the whole point of America is that it is a place where we can criticize freely!
Sorry that this post is worded so badly, but I am really angry!

Let's be very clear: Palestinians have adopted suicide bombing as a strategic choice, not out of desperation. This threatens all civilization because if suicide bombing is allowed to work in Israel, then, like hijacking and airplane bombing, it will be copied and will eventually lead to a bomber strapped with a nuclear device threatening entire nations. That is why the whole world must see this Palestinian suicide strategy defeated.

etc.

as to the question: short-term yes. assuming the goal was basically to start some shit. some shit got started. too soon to assess long-term effects.

One thing though: Wasn't the biggest reason people were angry at America because they viewed it as selfish and self-righteous and didn't like it monopolising the world? And hasn't GWB's reactions pretty obviously persuaded a lot of the world that this may well be true?

Ill stop waffling but Aaron Im not so sure I agree with all your sentiments, re a moralistic/religious? material reassessment of US values but hey Im not American so what the hell do I know.Their aims, a "holy jihad" (sp) implies a war to me but maybe Ive bought the media line.

Outcomes I agree with Ron.

In answer to the question: short term- very good, medium term(which I take to mean up to this point or so)- ???Did they expect to destabilize our government and economy and military by hitting the Pentagon, WTC, and Capitol building? Did they expect to put up a fight in Afghanistan? If that WAS the case, big failure. Long term goal- probably failure here too. I'm guessing the goal here is to get the US out of the Arab world while inflicting as many casualties upon us as possible. Soon we'll have bases in Iraq, so unless we're falling into some huge trap laid pre-9/11 this can't be good from Al-Qaida's perspective.

Question: Why does anti-suicide boming mean pro-Israel? Can we all agree that strapping explosives on your chest, walking into a crowded restaurant, market or mall and BLOWING EVERYBODY UP is inexcusably and always wrong??

I would love it, love it if patriotism were more often expressed as a willingness to destroy our enimies out of hand, without concern for what they might be trying to tell us, but since it is instead constured as some foggy pride in our ability to take it up the ass without striking back: well then I can't see why you liberals complain about it so much.

"There is a sense among some on the right (who happen to be controlling the government at this time, of course) that America is a special place that shines the light of god-fearing liberty to the rest of the world."

Is this really just limited to the religious reich in America? Or is it more closely linked to individual rights and freedoms? Could not an athetist liberal Democrat also believe that America is a special place that shines the light of democracy to the world.

In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. Ayn Rand

Pfaff concludes the real success of Osama Bin Laden is altering the geopolitical outlook of the USA for the worst. Using an illuminating comparison between the USA and pre-WW1 Germany he notes Washington's unrealistic geopolitical ambitions, preemptive strategies, and increasing tendency to alienate allies and make enemies of former friends.

The long term goals of ObL and his band of theocratic thugs, as I understand it, are to establish Fundamentalist Islamic control firstly in the Islamic world, secondly the world over. The USA, with its support for Israel and corrupt regimes in the region, is seen as a number one opponent against the sort of changes they would like. It
has been knocked out of balance by 09/11, and is fast developing an increasingly unilateral foreign policy re-Iraq that has the potential to be massively counterproductive and leave the USA more isolated than ever.

On these terms I fear many an Al-Qaida sympathiser will view 09/11 as a success.

Surely that fairly massive achievement would have had them thinking it was a success no matter what.

It's quite possible that the strike will prove counter-productive to the perpetrator's long term goals - the USA has sided more and more overtly with Israel, and are threatening to invade all anti-USA countries in the middle east - but t-heads have no monopoly on actions counter-productive to longterm goals, as future students of Bushi's war on Iraq will note.

with the exception of afghanistan (currently shut down) and pakistan (one of several embattled factions), al qaeda has no significant *mobilised* popular following ANYWHERE: it has massive doctrinal divisions with iran (wrong kind of islam) AND iraq (secular), and unresolvable political differences with its homeland, saudi arabia => the presence of active and murderous fundamentalist orgs in, say, egypt, is not much more revealing of that nation's complexion than, say, the activities of the Red Army Faction in West Germany in the 70s.

what's astonishing about (say) anti-brit politicking within the british islamic community is not how mnuch there is, but how little (compared even with the activity round the early salman rushdie stuff)

(refugees flood to the west for a reason, however obnoxiously and gracelessly they are treated when they arrive: i'm not suggesting that they wouldn't prefer to stay at home, if their homes were war-free and wealthy, but i am saying that life in the western democracies currently also offers some OTHER things that can't be found in the places they fled, and that anyone who's benefitted from them is going to be torn at best when it comes to identifying politically with orgs that announce they intend to bury the West)

This was disproved, I thought.

These parties may oppose Al-Quaeda terrorism as much as Iran does but it would still mean a 180 degree shift in how these states are run, especially in foreign policy. By comparison West Germans felt little for the new-left (of which RAF were the lunatic/violent fringe) and responded to their violence by voting in the CDU/CSU governments.

there was a good piece in the lrb abt this maybe a month ago, reviewing a book by one of the great scholars of modern political islam, whose name i've totally forgotten (i'm basically rehashing his position): i'll link it later if i can find it (may not be online)

And also that Americans should
"...destroy our enimies out of hand..."

I'd like to suggest that many Palestinians, Iraqis, and other members of Middle Eastern countries probably feel the same way and hence they indulge in suicide bombings and airplane hijacking-and-crashing. Funny that.

Brian also goes on to say:
"...Read the writings of Islamic fundamentalist militants: it's all 'destroy Isreal', 'destroy USA'."

Gee, this sounds astonishingly like the writings of the American media [i.e. Christian Capitalist Fundamentalist militants]: 'destroy Iraq', 'destroy Afghanistan', 'destroy the Taliban'.

On weighing the two up as objectively as I can, the Islamic fundamentalists appear to have a lot more justification for their behaviour. I still can't work out why it's any business of the USA what goes on in the Middle East. If they had kept away from there in the first place I suspect that the World Trade Centre would still be standing (unless the engineering really was as crap as has been reported, or the Serbians decided to get some revenge - but then what the hell was the USA doing there anyway they must have noticed that there were some muslims in the community).

For what it's worth, at school (in my Hot Deformation of Metals class), we were told that the building was actually very well built. You could probably easily find more information about this elsewhere from someone who knows more about it than I do but here goes anyway: In regards to fire, the building was meant withstand office fires (which would be mostly paper) and burn far less hotly than a jet-fuel fire. The support beams in the structure were coated with (I think) fire-resistant tiles which would have worked just fine in an office fire. Due to the intense heat, the steel softened as it underwent the ferrite to ausenite transition (NOT melted as reported) and couldn't bear the weight of the building causing the collapse. The building was actually pretty sturdy as it had a central core + more than the usual number of reinforcing beams. It held up for a much longer amount of time than if it hadn't had the extra reinforcements thus allowing more people to escape. The construction of the building took into account all the usual considerations, ex. fire, earthquakes, high winds.... but no engineers/architects could ever predict a plane crashing into the building.

I urge you to find out more about this subject 'cause it's really interesting!

Aaron:
>There is a sense among some on the right (who happen to be
>controlling the government at this time, of course) that America is
>a special place that shines the light of god-fearing liberty to the
>rest of the world. It is never stated in that fashion, but subtle
>hints are there.

I think it's stated pretty directly in that fashion, in the pledge debate and in almost anything from John Ashcroft (his song comes particularly to mind). One of the most striking things about the last year is that more people are aware not only that Americans consider the US to be God's Chosen Land (as many people do of their homelands), but they have no idea that the rest of the world doesn't share that view.

Brian:
>I would love it, love it if patriotism were more often expressed as
>a willingness to destroy our enimies out of hand, without concern
>for what they might be trying to tell us, but since it is instead
>constured as some foggy pride in our ability to take it up the ass
>without striking back

You, on the other hand, are just on crack.

>they also got us to celebrate, and honor, the blackest day of our
>histroy.

They don't actually celebrate it, not in the was Australia does (and
it's done them no harm)

I do believe that America is evil and I do believe that it is doing an enormous amount of harm - the insidious destruction of Australian culture.

I want to know why Johnny is interested in getting into a war against Iraq on the basis that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction but has neglected to go to war against America, France, Russia or anyone else for the same offence.

I want to live in a world where there is diversity. I want there to be Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Christian, Jewish etc. places. At the moment I believe the greatest threat to a world of diversity is America. 100 years ago it was Britain, 200 years ago it was the Jesuits.

oh no: attack of the chimera! (Oh, no.)

Culture: the way of life, esp. the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time

Australia has its own cultural identity, which is very different from that of Britain.

Cultural cringe is the fear that your own country's culture is not as good as that of other countries. The cultural cringe has faded over the past few decades as Australia has been rethinking its role in the world.

I suppose it involved playing cricket on Christmas day, footy & meat pies, bbqs, beaches, sheep, Yacht races on boxing day, beer, hard-work, dust, Chinese, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese & Japanese food etc. It is so different in each state due to the different climate, different types of British settlers and different groups of refugees and other immigrants.

It's always been fluid and heavily influenced by each lot of immigrants but the problem with the Americanisation of it is that they only came here for a couple of years for rec. leave during the war and via film & telly. That's why I don't consider the Americanisation of Australian culture to be valid. There are (almost) no people with a history of American culture here.

It could have been so easily avoided too, if different media quotas had been in place, but it's almost too late now.

he wants to set events in motion that will lead to the emergence of a strong, unified Islamic power - not just to rival the West, but to overshadow it, just as we have overshadowed Islam for several centuries.

I don't see evidence that we're any closer to this.

You've Been SuperPoked!!

From: "SuperPoke!" <apps+zdr1✧✧✧@facebookm✧✧✧.c✧✧>

xxxxxx xxxx has remembered 9/11 with you. Check it out!

... OR always remember xxxxxx! ... OR Supe! rPoke back!

Second Tower SuperPoked

xpost
It's still much too early in the game for that particular goal.

http://www.edu-negev.gov.il/bs/makif7/english/nostradamus2.jpg

lol

I think the central problem is that unifying a diverse group of communities against a common enemy only works in the short-term - and it hasn't even really worked in the short-term in this case (the Muslim world is still pretty politically weak, disorganized, and filled with infighting). Bin Laden's method is flawed, it can't resolve the disparities between Muslim communities in the narrow way that he wants.

The global economy did not collapse, plunging us into a new dark age. Hence, it didn't accomplish its stated aims.

really I think Bin Laden is largely a bozo who got colossally lucky with 9/11 and he is likely to go down in Muslim history as just one of a long line of ineffectual but loudmouthed "martyrs", who will garner equal parts praise and scorn depending upon the audience.

Very good about the spectacles!

At the moment, he is working toward establishing a national power base in an Islamic country. He can't possibly get to his end goal without it. His best bets today seem to be Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

He seems to be working much the hardest in Pakistan. Complete control of Pakistan's government would give him control of nuclear weapons. The fact that he can operate there with impugnity keeps his chances of success alive.

It is still true that he's playing a long shot, but he is stronger today than he was in 2001, or even in 2005. The fall of Musharraf provides him with room to wiggle further into a Pakistani power base.

Bozo? The signifigance of Osama is not that he is the brightest bulb in the bin, or that he is the mastermind of al Qaeda. I think he is more of a figurehead, a brand name, the face-on-the-box for al Qaeda. They need his name on the marquee. He has some smart people working in the background. If Osama buys the farm, it won't much affect his role as logo. But al Qaeda's prestige would take a hit.

I have no idea whether al Qaeda will go forward or backward in the next couple of years, but I would feel a whole lot better if al Qaeda were shrivelling up and losing prestige. They do not seem to be doing that. The contrary, rather.

Bozo? The signifigance of Osama is not that he is the brightest bulb in the bin, or that he is the mastermind of al Qaeda. I think he is more of a figurehead, a brand name, the face-on-the-box for al Qaeda.

http://www.clown-ministry.com/images/bozo-boppers.jpg

Complete control of Pakistan's government

so not gonna happen. India would nuke Pakistan into the stone age, so to speak.

I would feel a whole lot better if al Qaeda were shrivelling up and losing prestige. They do not seem to be doing that. The contrary, rather.

what makes you say this...? their power base is shrunk, they haven't had anything they can claim as a serious success since, what, the London bombings...? The Islamic world on the whole has not united behind them or supported them, most are either too busy with their own problems or actively against him. Pakistan's instability is endemic to the country and predates Al Qaeda's presence in the region by decades, the likelihood of Bin Laden seizing some kind of legitimate political role is close to nil, methinks. Afghanistan was his best bet, and he fucked that up right and proper (Mullah Omar and Bin Laden had a very strained relationship at best). Right now what they need is a lawless region to fluorish and build infrastructure, the Afghan-Pakistani border is the most convenient place since its been lawless for centuries.

and btw I agree his role is more of a PR one and it always has been - he was the posterboy and the fundraiser, but the brains is definitely Al-Zwahiri, who would probably rather seize control of Egypt than be stuck in a cave in Pakistan.

(also important to note that while they may cooperate and share a number of goals, the Taliban /= Al Qaeda)

The global economy did not collapse, plunging us into a new dark age. Hence, it didn't accomplish its stated aims.

Well no but it did affect the US financial policy over the next few years which has had significant effect on where we are right now. Whether this inflationary path (and resulting war) was an aim of 'al qaeda' (whoever they are) or the US administration is another matter

Did it work? Did it work for who?

Bin Laden knew that by attacking the World Financial Center, he was putting the nail in the coffin of the tech bubble, thus requiring a new outlet for investor money. Master strategist that he was, Bin Laden recognized that the most likely place for this money to go was into fishy new mortgage products. I think you know the rest.

lololol

War is a tried and trusted tool for reflation and partly why the US has almost constantly been at war since the end of the depression

um the US has been almost constantly at war for its entire existence

Yeah, but that's mostly down to the Rand Corporation.

but he has re-established himself in northwestern Pakistan

What you have in North-Western Pakistan, is a group of very poor, semi-independant Pakhtun tribes that have had it with the Pakistani government. All this "Al Qaeda Sanctuary" nonsense is just a lame excuse for the American military's incompetence in Afghanistan, the same way that Iran is a scapegoat for their incompetence in Iraq.

http://untzuntz.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/mastermind1.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b367/Euphrates1/silly%20stuff/cookiemonster.jpg

ctw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjGJPPRD3u0

They're too late! AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAA!

"...and to celebrate that murder they want to build a mosque at ground zero."

The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

-Michael Bloomberg

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/03/mayor_bloomberg_on_mosque/index.html

http://hotchickssmilingatgroundzero.com/

sixteen year olds smiling at ground zero

They're smiling because they can see Century 21

http://www.thenation.com/article/14-years-after-911-the-war-on-terror-is-accomplishing-everything-bin-laden-hoped-it-would/

ISIS is in certain ways a realization of Bin Laden's strategic plan, maybe not exactly how he would have wanted it, but it's impressive in a way.

That's actually a pretty dumb article btw.

it is dumb. but OBL was a rich kid with a bad track record of predictions about the great satan (bush i didn't topple baghdad; clinton RESCUED the muslims in bosnia) until rich kid bush ii came along and made OBL look oracular

I don't think he was oracular, but he was trying to provoke us into a protracted conflict in the middle east in order to destabilize the region, mire us in war and radicalize muslims, and he eventually made that happen.

I do kind of like imagining him after WTC I going "DAMNIT! SHIT! Ok...ok, fuck car bombs, here's what we're going to do...we're gonna...we're gonna get...fuckin...PLANES...that's it...yeah...we'll crash fuckin PLANES into the towers, THAT'S gonna be a spectacle."

"THEN we'll run SHRUB against Gore . . . and though of course SHRUB will lose to Gore . . . Ok . . ok, fuck car bombs, the SCOTUS will go full partisan and award BUSH the WHITE HOUSE . . . then with an idiot rich fuck in charge . . . boom, game on"

it was not hard that morning to imagine the horrors of the years afterward, not precisely, but in general.

i'm naive - it didn't occur to me until mccain dubbed it an "act of war" on camera, that night or the next day

it was not hard that morning to imagine the horrors of the years afterward, not precisely, but in general.

i was flying to los angeles on 9/11, ended up stranded in canada for a week, and was genuinely surprised missiles weren't already in the air when our plane landed at edmonton.

the missiles would have been flying, if they'd known where to aim them

I definitely thought some kind of protracted war would follow. I don't think I saw Iraq coming though.

it absolutely worked, this seems indisputable. OBL's specifics prognostications aside, it dragged the US directly into wars into the middle east, which has upended the political stability of the region, radicalized Muslims the world over, etc.

it was not hard that morning to imagine the horrors of the years afterward, not precisely, but in general.

it was p easy imo, Iraq invasion was practically a foregone conclusion by the time the 2nd tower was down

people were saying "well W is going back into Iraq" even before 9/11

yup 9/11 was just what made it inevitable

my memory is fuzzy, makes sense though

"the day that America finally went mad"

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a37846/legacy-of-september-11/