4 ms·

We have this weird idea in the US that the world changed fundamentally on 9/11/2001. But it didn't, really; the risk of terrorist attacks didn't skyrocket just

We have this weird idea in the US that the world changed fundamentally on 9/11/2001. But it didn't, really; the risk of terrorist attacks didn't skyrocket just because one happened. That doesn't really even make sense. It's us that changed. With that in mind, one question to have is, if the TSA stops terrorist attacks, where were all the attacks before 2001? Certainly, there were some. But a) they didn't cause us to create the TSA anyway, b) they often involved bombs in luggage which isn't what we're talking about here, c) they usually weren't in the US anyway, and d) they were rare in any case. Even if the TSA were effective -- and it's clearly laughable -- it would still be massive overreaction to a very rare event.

saiya-jin 11y ago
yeah, for the most of the world (read - outside US, roughly 95% of mankind), 9/11 isn't anything significant - vast amounts of people die/are murdered all around the world, all the time, and very few really care. sad part is, and this is subjective but for me very visible pattern, the immediate seizure of this opportunity to radicalize/permanently install of fear into US population, pushing for surveillance policies, unjustified wars, mass killings of civilians for money&power equation (Iraq/Afghanistan, you can call it how you like it, I call it like this since it's pretty damn obvious). And american society swallowed this as a whole, without questions, even proudly. 14 years rewind, now look at current situation...
vidarh 11y ago
The interesting thing is, contrary to what I expected would happen, hijackings still "work". As in: Plane hijackers succeed at taking control of planes about as often as before, in general without passengers risking their lives to overpower them. For a while I thought that the biggest reason to not get into hysteria over security measures was that passengers would from then on see a hijacker as likely to kill them, and so taking control of a plane would get drastically harder either way. I was wrong - apart from the odd inept wannabe bomber (the "shoe bomber" for example), passengers generally don't overpower hijackers. Yet most passengers still survive hijackings, because just as before 9/11 most hijackers have no interest in committing suicide. Things might be different if a bunch of muslims tried to hijack another plane in a major US city, or headed for one, but that scenario was an aberration when it happened, and still is. 9/11 is noteworthy for how little it changed hijackings despite what a major event it was: It didn't spawn a long range of copycats. It didn't cause passengers to risk their lives to stop future hijackers. It didn't cause any large drop in hijackings as a result of new security measures. It didn't cause any large increase in hijackings by "inspiring" others.

saiya-jin 11y ago

yeah, for the most of the world (read - outside US, roughly 95% of mankind), 9/11 isn't anything significant - vast amounts of people die/are murdered all around the world, all the time, and very few really care. sad part is, and this is subjective but for me very visible pattern, the immediate seizure of this opportunity to radicalize/permanently install of fear into US population, pushing for surveillance policies, unjustified wars, mass killings of civilians for money&power equation (Iraq/Afghanistan, you can call it how you like it, I call it like this since it's pretty damn obvious). And american society swallowed this as a whole, without questions, even proudly. 14 years rewind, now look at current situation...

vidarh 11y ago

The interesting thing is, contrary to what I expected would happen, hijackings still "work". As in: Plane hijackers succeed at taking control of planes about as often as before, in general without passengers risking their lives to overpower them. For a while I thought that the biggest reason to not get into hysteria over security measures was that passengers would from then on see a hijacker as likely to kill them, and so taking control of a plane would get drastically harder either way. I was wrong - apart from the odd inept wannabe bomber (the "shoe bomber" for example), passengers generally don't overpower hijackers. Yet most passengers still survive hijackings, because just as before 9/11 most hijackers have no interest in committing suicide. Things might be different if a bunch of muslims tried to hijack another plane in a major US city, or headed for one, but that scenario was an aberration when it happened, and still is. 9/11 is noteworthy for how little it changed hijackings despite what a major event it was: It didn't spawn a long range of copycats. It didn't cause passengers to risk their lives to stop future hijackers. It didn't cause any large drop in hijackings as a result of new security measures. It didn't cause any large increase in hijackings by "inspiring" others.