Saturday, September 12, 2009

9/11

I was watching the History International Channel last night. They had a well-done show on 9/11, comprised entirely of footage taken by average people and cameramen on the ground. No narrator was necessary. It reminded one of that day well enough. Who wouldn't be moved?

And while our current administration and the left would have us forget that day, I cannot. After eight years, we still have not punished those responsible. After eight years, I still want blood.

Spencer

8 comments:

Son3 said...

This is probably the best 9/11 documentary I've ever seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk7htWPF874

The evil doer shall be vanquished.

Eventually.

Lizzy Brown said...

I remember it too... just like it was yesterday. The lives lost, and so much sadness. Justice should be done, but who knows if it ever will be- It rarely is.

duva said...

Right you are, Spencer, who wouldn't be moved? However, I can't but ask: what good will seeing yet more blood do? Two governments have been overthrown, hundreds of thousands of humans have died and the regions in question are growing less and less stable just as the extremists are growing stronger and stronger... isn't all this war playing right into the hands of the extremists? Isn't paranoia, fear, instability and perpetual violence just what they wish for?

That might be how your supposed left thinks, at least that's how I think (and for the record I'd never call your administration left but that's another story ;)), and just as I see no reason of forgetting 9/11 of 2001, I am sure they don't either, it's just that there are different ways of handling it.

Speaking of 9/11, it really seems to be a sort of black date in history, doesn't it? The day the democratic regime of Chile was overthrown to make room for a brutal military junta in 1973... also the day that a Swedish minister for foreign affairs was murdered in 2003 (actually she was attacked on the tenth, but she died on the eleventh).. and the WTC.. A date to be remembered indeed.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

duva: I think the "war effort" has been muddled until it's not even what it was when it started, what it should have been.

I want those people responsible, not a bunch of rabbit trails.

Does that even make any sense?

Spencer

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Son3: Whoa, don't know what it is but it's way too long for me!

Lizzy: True....

olde.fashioned said...

However, I can't but ask: what good will seeing yet more blood do?

Butting in here. Duva, I'm going to preface all of this that I firmly believe in the right to respectfully "agree to disagree" with people of opposing viewpoints, but you did ask a question, and hopefully my following attempt to give my answer won't be too horribly muddled, LOL.

What good will more bloodshed do? I think that's the wrong question to be asking. Rather, we should ask, what good will the alternative to "bloodshed" (in this context, war), be? Would shoving our hands firmly into our pockets, standing by and letting a radical Islamic regime wreck their hideous havoc wherever they please be a good thing to do?

Two governments have been overthrown, hundreds of thousands of humans have died and the regions in question are growing less and less stable just as the extremists are growing stronger and stronger...

Two disgustingly corrupt governments down the drain; what a loss. Granted their replacement governments aren't fully functioning yet, but to expect time-seasoned perfection so early is unrealistic. America is a great deal older than either Afghanistan or Iraq and our own government is still fraught with flaws.

As for the lives lost, I'm going to ask everyone to forgive me for quoting a bumper sticker; "Freedom isn't free." While of course, any innocent deaths are to be lamented, such evils are part of the cost of war.

isn't all this war playing right into the hands of the extremists? Isn't paranoia, fear, instability and perpetual violence just what they wish for?

What is your suggestion for the alternative? Pacifism? Placating the enemy, giving in to their demands? Please forgive me if my tone sounds somewhat hostile -- I don't intend to sound rough, but I cannot help but be reminded of the same useless efforts which were expended in trying to satisfy Hitler...

Speaking of 9/11, it really seems to be a sort of black date in history, doesn't it? The day the democratic regime of Chile was overthrown to make room for a brutal military junta in 1973... also the day that a Swedish minister for foreign affairs was murdered in 2003 ...

I just wanna point out here that while I'm unversed in the two instances you brought up, the first sounds like a military target, and the latter a political assassination, and presumably, neither was on the scale of 9/11/2001, which had absolutely nothing to do with overthrowing an opposing government, or eliminating a political rival. It was simply a hideous act of evil. Period. So forgive me for feeling that what happened in New York eight years ago was vastly more tragic than either of your other examples.

duva said...

Spencer:

I do understand. It's just that I believe bin Ladin and his pack probably can and will hide in the mountains of Afghanistan for the rest of their lives however many troops you send there. Obviously the hunt isn't working, and I think the unsuccesful ten year attempt of Soviet to subdue Afghanistan is quite a good example from the past as well, showing that other methods would be viable...

olde.fashioned:

You're welcome, I wouldn't have posted that on this kind of a blog if I didn't expect any kind of reaction ;)

"Two disgustingly corrupt governments down the drain; what a loss."

I'm not saying overthrowing those regimes (then there's of course the irony in the fact that both of them were in the past supported by the US) was wrong per se, it's more that I think it was done for the wrong reason and in the wrong way. Bush didn't go to Afghanistan because he wanted to liberate its population, he came there to hunt terrorists and it's only in recent times a decent scheme of building up the country has taken form, and still lacking very much I would say. Even more soldiers will probably solve nothing (again, look at Soviet), it's the breeding ground of new extremists that has to be stomped out, and that can't be done with arms only.

"Placating the enemy, giving in to their demands?"

Isn't that just what we have done in the "Western World"? Al-Qaida attacked the US as the paragon of liberty and how have we democratic states resonded to that? We've answered by relinquishing the very liberty that was attacked. Just look at the procedures you have to go through to go on a plane these days, and do take a look at what's happening on the Internet with surveillance and censorship - something Spencer has brought up a few times, and it's not only happening in the US, it's come at least as far in the conservatively dominated European Union as well as in Sweden currently under a Liberal-Conservative government. Then there's the issue of surveillance cameras et al.... the list goes on, and what is the answer the politicians always bring forth?

Terrorism. We have to defend ourselves against the terrorists.

The terrorists can kill some people, hundreds, even occasionaly thousands, but that's all. We on the other hand can change our laws, we can change our behaviour, we can relinquish our traditions of freedom and restrict the freedom of millions and billions of people, and that's just what we have done.

Through being afraid I'd die a thousand times a day, not being afraid I'll only die once, and if it's at the hands of a terrorist while living the life of freedom that I love and value I'll do it proudly and righteously.

"I just wanna point out here that while I'm unversed in the two instances you brought up, the first sounds like a military target, and the latter a political assassination, and presumably, neither was on the scale of 9/11/2001, which had absolutely nothing to do with overthrowing an opposing government, or eliminating a political rival. It was simply a hideous act of evil. Period. So forgive me for feeling that what happened in New York eight years ago was vastly more tragic than either of your other examples."

What's the point of measuring what's worst? Our minister of foreign affairs was killed by a madman totally void of political motives and the coup of Chile led to the death of at least 3000 and imprisonment of 27000 not to mention all refugees.... You have both a grand scale as well as an act of apparent meaningless evil there, and I'd also say there was a political motive in the attack on the WTC, however twisted that motive may have been. But as I said, I find no reason to measure what's worst. They are all tragedies to be lamented.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Obviously the hunt isn't working

Exactly part of my point. Our politicians sidetracked us, and I am not pleased.

I'm not saying overthrowing those regimes (then there's of course the irony in the fact that both of them were in the past supported by the US) was wrong per se, it's more that I think it was done for the wrong reason and in the wrong way.

I also agree somewhat. I am afraid that I doubt Bush's motives, especially on Iraq.

Al-Qaida attacked the US as the paragon of liberty and how have we democratic states resonded to that? We've answered by relinquishing the very liberty that was attacked. Just look at the procedures you have to go through to go on a plane these days, and do take a look at what's happening on the Internet with surveillance and censorship - something Spencer has brought up a few times, and it's not only happening in the US, it's come at least as far in the conservatively dominated European Union as well as in Sweden currently under a Liberal-Conservative government. Then there's the issue of surveillance cameras et al.... the list goes on, and what is the answer the politicians always bring forth?

Terrorism. We have to defend ourselves against the terrorists.

The terrorists can kill some people, hundreds, even occasionaly thousands, but that's all. We on the other hand can change our laws, we can change our behaviour, we can relinquish our traditions of freedom and restrict the freedom of millions and billions of people, and that's just what we have done.


I am afraid I do not know the assassination tale you mention, but as to Chile I assume you mean the Pinochet event?

Thank you both for your comments and lively discourse! It keeps my blog interesting. ;-D

Spencer

Exactly, exactly, exactly! We should respond in a different way. Sacrificing our liberty is more than just counter-productive.