6 ms·

3000 people died, but if you don't think the events changed the world you're delusional. We're talking about two prolonged wars, trillions of dollars, thousand

by runT1ME 16y ago

3000 people died, but if you don't think the events changed the world you're delusional. We're talking about two prolonged wars, trillions of dollars, thousands of american lives being lost, countless civilians being injured or killed in war, a loss of civil liberties, hundreds if not more afflicted with illness due to the toxicity of ground zero, questions about our governments ability and willingness to protect against terrorism, possibly hundreds tortured in the name of fighting terrorism, and I could go on.

palish 16y ago
That's my point. All of that is a consequence of people being so massively upset about this one particular event. And for what? Exactly what you said: for no good reason! Let us please learn to put things into perspective so that we can avoid the true tragedies which you described: - two prolonged wars - trillions(!) of dollars spent - countless civilians being injured or killed in war - a loss of civil liberties - possibly hundreds tortured in the name of fighting terrorism Those tragedies were not caused by 9/11. They were caused by our perception of how terrible 9/11 was. In reality, the 3,000 lost lives pales in comparison to the bone-chilling list you assembled.
- avar 16y ago
  Without going into what are probably the actual reasons for these war the public justification for them has never been that people are "upset about this one particular event". The US and its allies aren't directly avenging the deaths of those 3,000 people. Rather it's recognized that if the perpetrators had the chance they would probably have killed 30 thousand, or 3 million. So the public justification for the "War on Terror" has been to prevent similar future events. See e.g. this interview with Tony Blair where he makes that exact point: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-14-2010/exclusive---tony-blair-extended-interview-pt--1 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-14-2010/excl...
- Jach 16y ago
  This is something I want to deeply understand some day. 1.8 people die around the world every second, and here we are getting pissed over a few thousand dead 9 years ago, the US media is drumming up an old fashioned religious war, and meanwhile 150,000 humans each with their own lives and family die every day. Human psychology is a funny thing.
  - alexdias 16y ago
    The thing is, those 150,000 humans don't all die of the same cause. These 3,000 did. Also, this has been stated multiple times, but 9/11 wasn't about killing 3,000 people, it was about attacking America as a whole, making people feel that they weren't safe in their own country. Surely you don't feel that way just by knowing that 150,000 humans die of random causes each day. This is major speculation, but what do you think would've happened if the fourth plane reached the White House/Capitol Building ?
    - gloob 16y ago
      Also, this has been stated multiple times, but 9/11 wasn't about killing 3,000 people, it was about attacking America as a whole, making people feel that they weren't safe in their own country. They aren't safe in their own country. Huge numbers of them die prematurely of random causes every month. Surely you don't feel that way just by knowing that 150,000 humans die of random causes each day. I look both ways when I cross the street. I don't check my car for bombs every morning. That should tell you something about which I fear more. Disclaimer: IANAA (I Am Not An American). Perhaps they feel differently than I do.
      - Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
        Huge numbers of them die prematurely of random causes every month Indeed, but you face life in prison for intentionally killing someone. There is a big, big difference between the two
      - pyre 16y ago
        > They aren't safe in their own country. Huge numbers of them > die prematurely of random causes every month. The crux being that people have either accepted those random causes of death, or they feel that they have enough control to avoid them (even if that isn't true). Terrorist attacks (though rare on American soil) are something that people have not (yet) accepted as unavoidable, or are something that they feel they have control over avoiding. The following also contributed: - The attack was perpetrated by Muslims against a predominantly Christian country. Especially a country with a lot of 'born-again'/Evangelical Christians that are rabidly religious. This helps to form a "Us vs. Them" mentality as well as a "They are attacking our way of life; our very identity." I have a strong feeling that the reaction would be less severe (though maybe not by much) if it had been perpetrated by members of another religion (or at least people that didn't use their religion as a reason for their actions). - The attack was perpetrated by a group. A group that has members that are still 'at large.' (i.e. "It could/will happen again.") By contrast, the Oklahoma City Bombing was easy to dismiss as some random crazy guy. - It came from outside of the country. If the attack had been from a group that was based in the US (i.e. some political group that resorted to terrorism), then the reaction probably wouldn't have been so severe. It's easier for form an "Us vs Them" mentality when there is a greater distinction between "us" and "them." If the people behind the attacks were Americans, people would still be outraged, but it would be a hell of a lot easier for them to picture those people as just 'crazies.' I think that a number of people also view Arabs/Muslims as 'below' them (i.e. "a bunch of rag-heads living out in the middle of god-forsaken desert") even if they consider themselves to be more enlightened than that.
- runT1ME 16y ago
  You are assuming they are separate incidents. Did you read the article on how many leads were 'shut odwn'? I think it's worth questioning [elements in] our government's willingness to protect against terrorism when it can have such far reaching consequences besides just a terrible loss of life.

by runT1ME 16y ago

palish 16y ago

That's my point. All of that is a consequence of people being so massively upset about this one particular event. And for what? Exactly what you said: for no good reason! Let us please learn to put things into perspective so that we can avoid the true tragedies which you described: - two prolonged wars - trillions(!) of dollars spent - countless civilians being injured or killed in war - a loss of civil liberties - possibly hundreds tortured in the name of fighting terrorism Those tragedies were not caused by 9/11. They were caused by our perception of how terrible 9/11 was. In reality, the 3,000 lost lives pales in comparison to the bone-chilling list you assembled.

avar 16y ago
Without going into what are probably the actual reasons for these war the public justification for them has never been that people are "upset about this one particular event". The US and its allies aren't directly avenging the deaths of those 3,000 people. Rather it's recognized that if the perpetrators had the chance they would probably have killed 30 thousand, or 3 million. So the public justification for the "War on Terror" has been to prevent similar future events. See e.g. this interview with Tony Blair where he makes that exact point: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-14-2010/exclusive---tony-blair-extended-interview-pt--1 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-14-2010/excl...
Jach 16y ago
This is something I want to deeply understand some day. 1.8 people die around the world every second, and here we are getting pissed over a few thousand dead 9 years ago, the US media is drumming up an old fashioned religious war, and meanwhile 150,000 humans each with their own lives and family die every day. Human psychology is a funny thing.
- alexdias 16y ago
  The thing is, those 150,000 humans don't all die of the same cause. These 3,000 did. Also, this has been stated multiple times, but 9/11 wasn't about killing 3,000 people, it was about attacking America as a whole, making people feel that they weren't safe in their own country. Surely you don't feel that way just by knowing that 150,000 humans die of random causes each day. This is major speculation, but what do you think would've happened if the fourth plane reached the White House/Capitol Building ?
  - gloob 16y ago
    Also, this has been stated multiple times, but 9/11 wasn't about killing 3,000 people, it was about attacking America as a whole, making people feel that they weren't safe in their own country. They aren't safe in their own country. Huge numbers of them die prematurely of random causes every month. Surely you don't feel that way just by knowing that 150,000 humans die of random causes each day. I look both ways when I cross the street. I don't check my car for bombs every morning. That should tell you something about which I fear more. Disclaimer: IANAA (I Am Not An American). Perhaps they feel differently than I do.
    - Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
      Huge numbers of them die prematurely of random causes every month Indeed, but you face life in prison for intentionally killing someone. There is a big, big difference between the two
    - pyre 16y ago
      > They aren't safe in their own country. Huge numbers of them > die prematurely of random causes every month. The crux being that people have either accepted those random causes of death, or they feel that they have enough control to avoid them (even if that isn't true). Terrorist attacks (though rare on American soil) are something that people have not (yet) accepted as unavoidable, or are something that they feel they have control over avoiding. The following also contributed: - The attack was perpetrated by Muslims against a predominantly Christian country. Especially a country with a lot of 'born-again'/Evangelical Christians that are rabidly religious. This helps to form a "Us vs. Them" mentality as well as a "They are attacking our way of life; our very identity." I have a strong feeling that the reaction would be less severe (though maybe not by much) if it had been perpetrated by members of another religion (or at least people that didn't use their religion as a reason for their actions). - The attack was perpetrated by a group. A group that has members that are still 'at large.' (i.e. "It could/will happen again.") By contrast, the Oklahoma City Bombing was easy to dismiss as some random crazy guy. - It came from outside of the country. If the attack had been from a group that was based in the US (i.e. some political group that resorted to terrorism), then the reaction probably wouldn't have been so severe. It's easier for form an "Us vs Them" mentality when there is a greater distinction between "us" and "them." If the people behind the attacks were Americans, people would still be outraged, but it would be a hell of a lot easier for them to picture those people as just 'crazies.' I think that a number of people also view Arabs/Muslims as 'below' them (i.e. "a bunch of rag-heads living out in the middle of god-forsaken desert") even if they consider themselves to be more enlightened than that.
runT1ME 16y ago
You are assuming they are separate incidents. Did you read the article on how many leads were 'shut odwn'? I think it's worth questioning [elements in] our government's willingness to protect against terrorism when it can have such far reaching consequences besides just a terrible loss of life.