Ok I have seen it a million times now and I still dont get it....

"This is a post 9/11 world"

What does that mean?

Because some guys planned out an attack that no one had really thought of so wasnt prevented, America changes course completely?

I dont get it.

I feel for all the people that died. It was a tragedy. But theres nothing world altering about it whatsoever. We have been getting attacked by terrorist in one form or another for a long time. Nothing has ever caused the same amount of destruction as this but it was a lucky shot. They found a weakness and exploited it.

We are never going to make terorism go away. There will always be people that dont agree with what is going on arround the world enough to try to make a statement. The oklahoma city bombing is a perfect example.

What is exactly is a post 9/11 world? what changed other than the medias willingness to excuse everything the bush cable does because of it?

in America, that 911 changed the world.

In other countries they reply, 'No it didn't. America just joined the rest of the world.'

on what you want to do about it. If the answer is nothing, then nothing has changed. If the answer is it woke you up to the animosity towards the US, maybe you'd want to change that. Etc. I try to remember the outpouring of love during that time and wish we would have built on it. And I also see that we will take the lead on 'terrorism'. I'm just not too terribly impressed with what that has meant to so far. I understand a post 9/11 world, the same as I understand a post 12/7 world. It's just not the same way the Bushies understand it.

I was never confused about the animosity towards the US in the first place. Niether was any person in a position of power at the time when 9/11 hapened.

9/11 changed nothing the world hates us more today if anything since 9/11

We were doing plenty to fight it before 9/11. It did create an atmosphere that would have alowed to increase the effectiveness of that fight tremendously but bush completely squandered that and in fact completely reversed it.

If anything we were safer 9/11 than we are today as there were less people in the world holding the animosity you refer to waking up to.

Which is why this confuses me so greatly. If in fact people woke up to the realiztion that people hated us on 9/11. why is the answer to that to prod more into hating us instead of taking a look at what the motivations were to begin with?

9/11 and 12/7 have absolutely nothing in common. 19 people pulled off 9/11 cause they were pissed off. 12/7 was a preemptive strike against america in the midst of a world war.

12/7 changed us from an unoffical war setting to an official one.

9/11 just made us loose our minds aparently.

That's the primary difference between 9/11 and 12/7. But they are the same in the sense that a major attack occured and some sort of reponse was required. That's what I meant by that comparison.

I suppose one could argue that 9/11 didn't change anything, in and of itself. But rather, the U.S. response changed everything. That does seem to be more accurate of a post 9/11 world. Followed by the question, what are we changing the world to? People are either awake to the hatred towards the US or just ready to kill anything that threatens them. Right now Bush is playing on the killer instinct to allow him to gallop around the world militarily changing the political landscape.

I don't think responding to terrorism is an either/or deal. We tried responding to it by just going after individual terrorists who committed individual acts. That didn't work so well. We didn't respond, and still haven't, by doing what we need to do about the roots of terrorism. Seems like it's a balancing act of going after individual terrorists, without instigating more terrorists; while changing the way we interact with third world countries, without continuing the same economic policies that have contributed to their animosity in the first place.

It's a tricky prospect. Leading the American people to the right place, executing an international strategy to locate and arrest terrorists, perhaps militarily intervening in countries where terrorists have taken over; all while developing new foreign relationships based on good economic policies, human rights and environmental and health policies. Who we put in charge of this task is critical, it's really the most monumental election since Abraham Lincoln. We have to get it right.

I agree in your assertion that they are the same in that both required a response.

I think attacking Afghanistan when they refused to give up Al-queda was an apropriate respons.

Since then our respinse has been pure lunacy.

I also agree that is a balancing act of foriegn policy and direct response. I hapen to be of the opinion that Iraq was in no way an apropriate response to the situation whatsoever.

The next election appears to me to be a fork in the road for America where foriegn policy is concerned. If the money to be made in Iraq wasnt so obvious not to mention the controll of the curency. It would apear as
if the curent resident was just lashing out aimlessley at any available target.

There are very few of our candidates that I dont trust to handle the bslancing act you speak of. Our real concern is just making sure whoever we pick we all get out there and get people to vote for them.

I did not use the word Iraq.

The next election is a fork in the road in everything imaginable. And I disagree that any of the candidates could handle all of it equally well. In fact, there's only 2 or 3 that I totally trust to do the job. And if Howard Dean would quit 'evolving', he would be one of them.

I didnt say any of our candidates I said there were only a few.

Great Dean jab though. Regardless of the truth of it.

it happen weren't counting on people actually thinking about it, they were hoping that American humans would just sever their ties to the reason centers of the brain and act completely on emotion. And maybe for about two weeks rationality (as well as irony and cynicism) were on the operating table, flatlining. Hell, I was angry and sad and confused for a little while, but then I strated picking up little things, little things which made me scratch my chin.

Bush telling everyone to continue shopping.

Bin Laden denying involvement. Did the videotaped "confession" convince me? At first.

The association of patriotism with the right wing exclusively.

The same celebrities who went on that telethon to raise money for the victims were being attacked a year later for being "anti-American."

The invasion of Afghanistan, who we'd helped install a government.

The immediate name dropping of Saddam Hussein.

PNAC.

You know the rest. It became obvious that I got set up! I was feeling exactly what the government wanted me to feel, and that made me uneasy. They expected that "let's roll" feeling to sustain indefinitely. Too badd for them, there are actual thinkers in the US.

This is not so much a post-9/11 USA as a pre-impeachment USA, I hope. As for the rest of the world, the rsults of 9/11 were to elevate the hatred of the USA to previously unknown heights.

Agreed!

Now that means that the terorists are wining this thing does it not?

The one I had was, "Bush wants to be a dictator, 9/11 is his excuse to be one."

Then, with military tribunals, Ari telling the press to "watch what they say", the TIPS idea, and the Patriot Act, my hunch was confirmed.

I also mourned the dead along with everyone else but I knew what it would lead to. Nobody listened.

because 9.11.01 changed America similarly to how 2.27.33 changed Germany.

The proverbial golden opportunity. Except they've screwed it up already, dum fux. :dunce:

Interesting take and 100% correct!

They might be "mired down" in Iraq, but that gives them the perfect excuse to stay! ("We can't leave until Iraq gets back on its feet")-- Of course, Iraq never will be allowed to get back on its feet! There's too much oil to siphon out of the ground, and it will be easier to hide the siphoning now that Iraq's reserves have officially been downgraded to 30% of the original estimate of 100+ billion barrels. Besides, Bechtel and Halliburton are making money hand over fist and contributing to the 7.2% GDP growth! Economy recovers, Bu$$$h gets the credit.

In the meantime, "patriots" are waving flags and forgetting that it was the Constitution, and not a piece of cloth, that made the US such a wonderful country. They'll happily fork over those freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights based on the government's outrageous conspiracy theory that a madman in one of the most isolated places in the world drafted and executed a plan that was so perfect that it caught the Air Force so off guard that they completely forget their decades of training, while the pretzeldunce was so dumfounded at the events that he continued with a reading lesson about a pet goat long after hearing that two towers had been hit and were on fire.

Not only that, but any investigations that could have mattered were effectively squelched when the WTC rubble was hurriedly shipped off to China for scrap, and Tom Daschle was warned to back off by both Bu$$$h and Cheney in January of 2002, just three months after he and fellow Democratic Senator Pat Leahy received high grade anthrax in their mail, which Cheney immediately attributed to Saddam but which was subsequently traced to Maryland.

Then last year, Republican candidates for Senate who looked to be on the ropes right up to election day pulled amazing victories out of the fire, with no exit polls conducted, or at least publicized. Then earlier this month, they effectively removed the only impediment to Enron getting off scot free in California and replaced him with an airheaded, Hitler-admiring body builder who said he will immediately stop the proceedings against Enron.

And all the while, sensible people around the world look on with disgust and apprehension as they watch these awful events unfold, knowing that there isn't a damn thing they can do about them. And the fat-ass American media keep up the charade that Kobe's sexual sins and a local murder case are the overriding concerns of the majority of the American people.

Tell me again how, from their own point of view, the Bu$$$istas have screwed it up.

And most of us help him do it.

a simulation of such an attack was being looked at on 9-11.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/popups/010911c.html

So they did know this was a possibility.
Yet it was not prevented.

Instead of "following the money", the FBI was blocked by the government in the investigation of financial ties between the Bin Laden family (others then Osama), and terrorists. Probably because they'd also have found ties with Bush (which isn't exactly a secret to begin with, but so far it's succesfully being suppressed).

I suppose you do know Bush*/the neocons lied about the war, it should not be a suprise they lie about other things as well.

This "post 9-11 world" thing is mostly deception, an excuse for war mongering; calling for more pre-emptive war on Iran, Syria, N Korea and with any 'luck' also Venezuela (already accused of supporting Al Qaeda) and probably some other S-American countries.
It is also an excuse for taking away civil liberties (Patriot Act); taking away the very freedoms the US supposedly is fighting for.

So there's nothing to "get": it doesn't make sense except when you see it in the context of the global corporate power grab (aka globalisation).
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/