Let’s Cancel 9/11

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#1
(Not a point-of-view you hear too many places. Long, but interesting.)

Tom Engelhardt:

Let’s bag it.

I’m talking about the tenth anniversary ceremonies for 9/11, and everything that goes with them: the solemn reading of the names of the dead, the tolling of bells, the honoring of first responders, the gathering of presidents, the dedication of the new memorial, the moments of silence. The works.

Let’s just can it all. Shut down Ground Zero. Lock out the tourists. Close “Reflecting Absence,” the memorial built in the “footprints” of the former towers with its grove of trees, giant pools, and multiple waterfalls before it can be unveiled this Sunday. Discontinue work on the underground National September 11 Museum due to open in 2012.

Tear down the Freedom Tower (redubbed 1 World Trade Center after our “freedom” wars went awry), 102 stories of “the most expensive skyscraper ever constructed in the United States.” (Estimated price tag: $3.3 billion.) Eliminate that still-being-constructed, hubris-filled 1,776 feet of building, planned in the heyday of George W. Bush and soaring into the Manhattan sky like a nyaah-nyaah invitation to future terrorists. Dismantle the other three office towers being built there as part of an $11 billion government-sponsored construction program. Let’s get rid of it all. If we had wanted a memorial to 9/11, it would have been more appropriate to leave one of the giant shards of broken tower there untouched.

Ask yourself this: ten years into the post-9/11 era, haven't we had enough of ourselves? If we have any respect for history or humanity or decency left, isn’t it time to rip the Band-Aid off the wound, to remove 9/11 from our collective consciousness? No more invocations of those attacks to explain otherwise inexplicable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our oh-so-global war on terror. No more invocations of 9/11 to keep the Pentagon and the national security state flooded with money. No more invocations of 9/11 to justify every encroachment on liberty, every new step in the surveillance of Americans, every advance in pat-downs and wand-downs and strip downs that keeps fear high and the homeland security state afloat.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 were in every sense abusive, horrific acts. And the saddest thing is that the victims of those suicidal monstrosities have been misused here ever since under the guise of pious remembrance. This country has become dependent on the dead of 9/11 -- who have no way of defending themselves against how they have been used -- as an all-purpose explanation for our own goodness and the horrors we’ve visited on others, for the many towers-worth of dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere whose blood is on our hands.

Isn’t it finally time to go cold turkey? To let go of the dead? Why keep repeating our 9/11 mantra as if it were some kind of old-time religion, when we’ve proven that we, as a nation, can’t handle it -- and worse yet, that we don’t deserve it?

We would have been better off consigning our memories of 9/11 to oblivion, forgetting it all if only we could. We can’t, of course. But we could stop the anniversary remembrances. We could stop invoking 9/11 in every imaginable way so many years later. We could stop using it to make ourselves feel like a far better country than we are. We could, in short, leave the dead in peace and take a good, hard look at ourselves, the living, in the nearest mirror.

Within 24 hours of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the first newspaper had already labeled the site in New York as “Ground Zero.” If anyone needed a sign that we were about to run off the rails, as a misassessment of what had actually occurred that should have been enough. Previously, the phrase “ground zero” had only one meaning: it was the spot where a nuclear explosion had occurred.

The facts of 9/11 are, in this sense, simple enough. It was not a nuclear attack. It was not apocalyptic. The cloud of smoke where the towers stood was no mushroom cloud. It was not potentially civilization ending. It did not endanger the existence of our country -- or even of New York City. Spectacular as it looked and staggering as the casualty figures were, the operation was hardly more technologically advanced than the failed attack on a single tower of the World Trade Center in 1993 by Islamists using a rented Ryder truck packed with explosives.

A second irreality went with the first. Almost immediately, key Republicans like Senator John McCain, followed by George W. Bush, top figures in his administration, and soon after, in a drumbeat of agreement, the mainstream media declared that we were “at war.” This was, Bush would say only three days after the attacks, "the first war of the twenty-first century." Only problem: it wasn’t. Despite the screaming headlines, Ground Zero wasn’t Pearl Harbor. Al-Qaeda wasn’t Japan, nor was it Nazi Germany. It wasn’t the Soviet Union. It had no army, nor finances to speak of, and possessed no state (though it had the minimalist protection of a hapless government in Afghanistan, one of the most backward, poverty-stricken lands on the planet). continued--
 

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#2
And yet -- another sign of where we were heading -- anyone who suggested that this wasn’t war, that it was a criminal act and some sort of international police action was in order, was simply laughed (or derided or insulted) out of the American room. And so the empire prepared to strike back (just as Osama bin Laden hoped it would) in an apocalyptic, planet-wide “war” for domination that masqueraded as a war for survival.

In the meantime, the populace was mustered through repetitive, nationwide 9/11 rites emphasizing that we Americans were the greatest victims, greatest survivors, and greatest dominators on planet Earth. It was in this cause that the dead of 9/11 were turned into potent recruiting agents for a revitalized American way of war.

From all this, in the brief mission-accomplished months after Kabul and then Baghdad fell, American hubris seemed to know no bounds -- and it was this moment, not 9/11 itself, from which the true inspiration for the gargantuan “Freedom Tower” and the then-billion-dollar project for a memorial on the site of the New York attacks would materialize. It was this sense of hubris that those gargantuan projects were intended to memorialize.

On the tenth anniversary of 9/11, for an imperial power that is distinctly tattered, visibly in decline, teetering at the edge of financial disaster, and battered by never-ending wars, political paralysis, terrible economic times, disintegrating infrastructure, and weird weather, all of this should be simple and obvious. That it’s not tells us much about the kind of shock therapy we still need.

Burying the Worst Urges in American Life

It’s commonplace, even today, to speak of Ground Zero as “hallowed ground.” How untrue. Ten years later, it is defiled ground and it’s we who have defiled it. It could have been different. The 9/11 attacks could have been like the Blitz in London in World War II. Something to remember forever with grim pride, stiff upper lip and all.

And if it were only the reactions of those in New York City that we had to remember, both the dead and the living, the first responders and the last responders, the people who created impromptu memorials to the dead and message centers for the missing in Manhattan, we might recall 9/11 with similar pride. Generally speaking, New Yorkers were respectful, heartfelt, thoughtful, and not vengeful. They didn’t have prior plans that, on September 12, 2001, they were ready to rally those nearly 3,000 dead to support. They weren’t prepared at the moment of the catastrophe to -- as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld so classically said -- “Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

Unfortunately, they were not the measure of the moment. As a result, the uses of 9/11 in the decade since have added up to a profile in cowardice, not courage, and if we let it be used that way in the next decade, we will go down in history as a nation of cowards.

There is little on this planet of the living more important, or more human, than the burial and remembrance of the dead. Even Neanderthals buried their dead, possibly with flowers, and tens of thousands of years ago, the earliest humans, the Cro-Magnon, were already burying their dead elaborately, in one case in clothing onto which more than 3,000 ivory beads had been sewn, perhaps as objects of reverence and even remembrance. Much of what we know of human prehistory and the earliest eras of our history comes from graves and tombs where the dead were provided for.

And surely it's our duty in this world of loss to remember the dead, those close to us and those more removed who mattered in our national or even planetary lives. Many of those who loved and were close to the victims of 9/11 are undoubtedly attached to the yearly ceremonies that surround their deceased wives, husbands, lovers, children, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters. For the nightmare of 9/11, they deserve a memorial. But we don’t.
If September 11th was indeed a nightmare, 9/11 as a memorial and Ground Zero as a “consecrated” place have turned out to be a blank check for the American war state, funding an endless trip to hell. They have helped lead us into fields of carnage that put the dead of 9/11 to shame.

Every dead person will, of course, be forgotten sooner or later, no matter how tightly we clasp their memories or what memorials we build. In my mind, I have a private memorial to my own dead parents. Whenever I leaf through my mother’s childhood photo album and recognize just about no one but her among all the faces, however, I'm also aware that there is no one left on this planet to ask about any of them. And when I die, my little memorial to them will go with me.

This will be the fate, sooner or later, of everyone who, on September 11, 2001, was murdered in those buildings in New York, in that field in Pennsylvania, and in the Pentagon, as well as those who sacrificed their lives in rescue attempts, or may now be dying as a result. Under such circumstances, who would not want to remember them all in a special way?

It’s a terrible thing to ask those still missing the dead of 9/11 to forgo the public spectacle that accompanies their memory, but worse is what we have: repeated solemn ceremonies to the ongoing health of the American war state and the wildest dreams of Osama bin Laden.

Memory is usually so important, but in this case we would have been better off with oblivion. It’s time to truly inter not the dead, but the worst urges in American life since 9/11 and the ceremonies which, for a decade, have gone with them. Better to bury all of that at sea with bin Laden and then mourn the dead, each in our own way, in silence and, above all, in peace.
 

Ristol

New York's Ambassador
#3
Not to state the obvious, but it's extremely distasteful to politicize 9/11. He says just that, and then he goes and does it. He's disgusted by the "uses of 9/11", and then he focuses on them, which completely misses the point. Marking the date doesn't mean honoring the Iraq War, or warrantless wiretaps, or Gitmo. It means taking the time every September 11 to reflect on what was lost. He seems to be obsessed with the long term effects. Okay. But that's what we deal with, on a daily basis, for the other 364 days. Today is for paying our respects.
 

vg4030

Well-Known Member
#4
Not to state the obvious, but it's extremely distasteful to politicize 9/11. He says just that, and then he goes and does it. He's disgusted by the "uses of 9/11", and then he focuses on them, which completely misses the point. Marking the date doesn't mean honoring the Iraq War, or warrantless wiretaps, or Gitmo. It means taking the time every September 11 to reflect on what was lost. He seems to be obsessed with the long term effects. Okay. But that's what we deal with, on a daily basis, for the other 364 days. Today is for paying our respects.
I agree with the remembrance part.

I thought it was shitty of bush to be there though looking all solemn, I have a few acquaintances who died in the attacks, i can only imagine what their families feel at that time. If I had family member killed in 9/11 I would have pissed to see bush there. He should have made a speech apologizing for papa bushes and reagans actions that led up to the attacks in the first place... but its all cool though... apparently you hate america if disagree with shitty presidents.

I still contend that what andy card whispered into bush's ear at that school was "Mo money Mo money Mo money"
 

Ristol

New York's Ambassador
#5
I think Bush compounded the tragedy with the course he took after 9/11--but implying that U.S. actions led to 9/11 is, while popular, unfair. Bin Laden was a sociopath, a cold-blooded killer, who basically just killed whoever he didn't like. He had no sensible motive. Before he killed U.S. citizens he had provided "religious justification" for the killings of Saudi, Sudanese, Egyptian, English, and Afghan people. His anger was not with America, it was with humanity.

It's not unpatriotic to disagree with "shitty presidents": that isn't what I said. I think it's inappropriate to talk about 9/11 through the lens of politics ON 9/11. Paul Krugman called it "an occasion for shame", shaming only himself.
 

vg4030

Well-Known Member
#6
I'm not sure you get my point. I think Bush compounded the tragedy with the course he took after 9/11. However, implying that U.S. actions led to 9/11 is, while popular, unfair. Bin Laden was a sociopath, a cold-blooded killer, who basically just killed whoever he didn't like. He had no sensible motive.
But what created Bin Laden? Even if he was a sociopath, thats even more reason not to fuck him over lol
 

S O F I

Administrator
Staff member
#8
Bin Laden was a sociopath, a cold-blooded killer, who basically just killed whoever he didn't like. He had no sensible motive. Before he killed U.S. citizens he had provided "religious justification" for the killings of Saudi, Sudanese, Egyptian, English, and Afghan people. His anger was not with America, it was with humanity.
This is such utter and complete bullshit and the type of bullshit you expect to hear from Americans who want to believe that there's no method to Al-Qaeda's madness when there sure is. No American wants to believe that there WAS a motive for 9/11 and the previous bombings of Americans and Americans' allies. They believe that any motive implies the killings were justified. Nothing justifies the actions that took innocent lives on 9/11. But if you dismiss Osama's motives, you're sure to repeat your problems.

The hard, cold reality is that if America didn't meddle in Middle Eastern affairs, if America didn't have troops in the Gulf, if America didn't blindly support Israel even when Israel did wrong, 9/11 would not have happened.
 

Ristol

New York's Ambassador
#9
This is such utter and complete bullshit and the type of bullshit you expect to hear from Americans who want to believe that there's no method to Al-Qaeda's madness when there sure is. No American wants to believe that there WAS a motive for 9/11 and the previous bombings of Americans and Americans' allies. They believe that any motive implies the killings were justified. Nothing justifies the actions that took innocent lives on 9/11. But if you dismiss Osama's motives, you're sure to repeat your problems.
I think everybody pretty much knows the motives. No great revelation in anything you said. Lots of people were offended by America's foreign policy in the decades before 9/11. Only criminally deranged madmen flew planes into buildings. I choose not to give credence to murderers. If someone shoots a member of your family, are you going to listen to a god-damned word he says about why he did it? It wasn't an act of war, can't be classified as a response to anything. It was mass murder. Motives will forever lay on the periphery of 9/11, where they belong.

We all understand why he said he did it. There is no understanding why he did it.

Also, read any history of Bin Laden's life. It's an endless pageant of him saying, "These people can be killed because..." and "These are not true Muslims and can therefore be killed." If you give legitimacy to his motives--and yes, by doing that you are implying that these acts can be justified--then you have to explain all the murder, everywhere. Not just in New York.
 

S O F I

Administrator
Staff member
#10
I think everybody pretty much knows the motives. No great revelation in anything you said. Lots of people were offended by America's foreign policy in the decades before 9/11. Only criminally deranged madmen flew planes into buildings. I choose not to give credence to murderers.
Just going by psychology and sociology alone, you're the one who's on the losing end if you don't try and understand why people do what they do. It's in American leaders' best interests that people like you think the way you do.

If someone shoots a member of your family, are you going to listen to a god-damned word he says about why he did it?
Maybe not in the moment of rage I'll be experiencing, but surely after I calm down. Who wouldn't?

It wasn't an act of war, can't be classified as a response to anything. It was mass murder. Motives will forever lay on the periphery of 9/11, where they belong.
What is an act of war and what isn't is mainly a technical issue following some UN definition. I never said it was an act of war. That's irrelevant.

Sure it can be classified as a response to a lot of things. Why not?

Americans were so far removed both physically and emotionally from the idea of civilian loss of life...until 9/11. Well, let me tell you, that most people in this world are very familiar with innocent people dying, and a lot of the times, due to American and NATO actions. Just look up how many civilians died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ask Zarko, who's three year old child was killed by NATO forces in Serbia. (http://guskova.ru/misc/docs/drep_mr)

We all understand why he said he did it. There is no understanding why he did it.
Yes, there's an understanding why he did it. The Twin towers were a symbol of capitalism and imperialism. The Pentagon is a symbol of American agression. Civilian loss of life is the best way to inflict terror on people. I can keep going.

Also, read any history of Bin Laden's life. It's an endless pageant of him saying, "These people can be killed because..." and "These are not true Muslims and can therefore be killed."
I did read quite a few New Yorker and NYT long articles on Osama and Al-Qaeda. Most of the stuff I'm saying I got from them.

If you give legitimacy to his motives--and yes, by doing that you are implying that these acts can be justified--then you have to explain all the murder, everywhere. Not just in New York.
I know that my posts imply that I believe 9/11 was justified. I surely don't as I'm sure you know that from our previous discussions. However, I can understand how Osama and Al-Qaeda and people like Anwar Al-Awlaki could justify it. I don't know where that puts me. But it is what it is.

I think people who can't begin to comprehend their motives are those who are either completely blinded by American patriotism or simply too emotionally involved in 9/11. You're simply too emotionally involved to understand their motives. You refuse to understand because it hurts, you feel like you're betraying the people who died and their loved ones, as if you're trivializing their deaths and justifying them. But that's not the case. It doesn't have to be. You just have to take a few steps back and approach the situation rationally.

also, what murder, due to Osama's actions or just murder in the world in general?
 

Pittsey

Knock, Knock...
Staff member
#12
Americans were so far removed both physically and emotionally from the idea of civilian loss of life...until 9/11.
This....!

Look at the financial and emotive support the IRA got from "Irish"-Americans before 9/11. This stopped afterwards. It's not nice living under the threat of terrorism. And if you compare the attacks on England between the terror groups, The IRA are in the lead for number of attacks, death toll and financial cost. Obviously there wasn't an attack that compares to 9/11.... But the whole western world sympathises with NY, especially in London as we dealt with that shit on a smaller scale several times a year. And we would happily chuck NI in with the rest of that financially weak Island...!

Note - I am not comparing life in London in the 80s and 90s to any of the war torn countries in the middle east or eastern europe.
 

Euphanasia

Well-Known Member
#13
It is naive to think/say that there was no sensible motive for Bin Laden's attack on the US on 9/11. Americans are largely ignorant to the views of people outside their own nation, particularly when those motives happen to lie embedded in an ancient text that screams hatred and violence towards people who doubt or disbelieve in Mohammed. Bin Laden pretty much took the Koran literally for every word and phrase and those peaceful muslims who denounce violence only do so because they opt to pick and choose what they will follow and believe very much like the Christians in my country do when it comes to the bible. It's all utter foolishness. However, when that foolishness evolves into something so hateful and destructive, I fear that ignorance to the true motives as well as a lack of understanding of those motives, well....we could be in for some very rough times ahead.
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

Top