Two Years Later - What We Still Don't Know

Cause 11th September has become mixed in both real facts and wanting to hang on to those heroic actions. No one wants to minimize the actions of the passengers, the initative Bush took (then) or lose track of any of the hijackers (on the planes or their many accomplices).

I really don't want to get all XFiles about all this, but the more shit comes out about coverups (the Australian govt has been caught with their pants down on this also), the more it stinks.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/5478.htm

compliments of the horned one!

I fucking love that

Yes. But not as insane, or as evil, as Osama, or his lieutenants. Or the Bali bombers. Or Saddam Hussein. Or his sons. Or chemical Ali.

Shall i go on?

Some perspective, please

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

The writer gets a bit too zealous as he goes on mind you but still. What to think.

And once again as awful as it is to say it, the threat of further global terror is thrilling, what could happen next, where could it happen, what precedents will it set, how will the world change this time? After 9/11 people (here at least) have been given a massive hit of how essential and all consuming and exhilarating news can be and all else is a lesser buzz. And this is particularly dangerous in that it potentially creates a cycle.

Of course when you manage to bring rationality back into things, and god knows it's difficult, you realise the pretty desperate effect of 9/11 on the world, from the general sense of glumness that seemed to come with the war on Iraq right through to getting searched in an airport or having to throw away a fucking cake cutter which someone gave you as a wedding present for your brother.

Isn't that one of the roots of European antipathy towards Our American Heroes/Patriot Day etc: "Yes, yes, welcome to the world"?

Can anyone do a complex days style sum to reach the requisite amount.

(28 Days Later + 28 Days + 100 Days Of Sodom + ....)

It was this moment on that same day that my being-mildly-frustrated-and-mildly-entertained-by-how-recklessly-the-Administration-was-tearing-through-bullshit became something closer to actual hate. 730 days. Ugh.

I mean that I think Andrew is saying what he's saying because it is undoubtedly the right thing to say rather than because he really wasn't more shocked by 9/11 than by other terrorist attacks around the world.

Part of the reason I'm being a bit of a bollix about this is that Ronan's need for consensus occasionally bugs the holy living fuck out of me. At this rate you'll be tag-teaming with Stuart Maconie on "I remember the noughties" (okay that is beyond the pale).

So anyway, yes, I wasn't more shocked by 911 than by any other terrorist attacks, and I consider it to differ from them in three ways: scale, the fact that it's the first sucessful attack on the US, and a media which meant that the world could know of it that day (and that the US could have reaction shots of dancing in the streets of Jenin on the evening news). I find the whole "now, this is global terrorism, something completely different" to be the sort of perspectiveless nonsense that gives the US a bad name.

I agree with Andrew by the way, which counts as consensus. Was I shocked by 9/11, oddly I don't think I was. Surprised and scared - oooh yes.

It's still fairly unclear what exactly your objection to my initial post is, aside from a point of pedantry, my use of the term "global terror" which it seems is a US establishment code word to you. Maybe I got it by bad reporting osmosis. Maybe not.

And of course a major terrorist event in the US is different because it's in the US, you don't have to be a raging pro-American to see that. You say it yourself anyway.

I think we might have different reactions to the phrase "global terrorism". I see it as "yes, this is new and exciting terrorism completely different from anything else ever because it's the US"/"It's global now lads, we're all in the same boat now" ie hawkish shite.

the fact that it's the first sucessful attack on the US

I mean talk about strawmen! I didn't even touch on it's global lads we're all in the same boat now as you well know.

And any Euro antipathy to US response to 9/11 which said "yes yes welcome to the world" would be beyond the realms of stupidity.

Surely shock=surprise and fear?

I'm saying "this isn't that big a thing to me" and you're saying "ah, now, surely you don't mean that". How is that not a desire for concensus?

I have no objection to your initial post at all, it's a great post, apart from saying Global Terror where you mean Terrorism in the US, which is just hitting my button.

You say it yourself anyway

No, I said it was the first terrorist strike on the US. It's the 'first' that I was focussing on.

It's _not_ strawmen, I'm saying myself that I get things from that phrase that you mightn't mean.

So for the record: are you saying that Global Terror is something that does include 911 but doesn't include palestinian suicide bombers? If you are, what else is covered by this term (I sound like a complete prick by now, but I'm interested to know what you, or anyone else, mean by this term that gets so under my skin).

And any Euro antipathy to US response to 9/11 which said "yes yes welcome to the world" would be beyond the realms of stupidity

I think it happened, under the heading "as awful as it is to say it".

(xpost Daddino is right, but this fits under scale (part2))

My "desire for consensus" seems to be stemmed from simply arguing! By your rationale you also desire consensus!

Also your final point makes no sense whatsoever.

Global terror to me meant major acts of terrorism in places where you wouldn't normally expect then, yes a loose use of a term I accept, perhaps "increasingly globalised" would be better. Still pedantry on your part though

My problem was that I'm aware of two meanings to "global terror": the literal one (international terror) which you didn't seem to be using, and the one that been used to mean "this is something new. follow us to war". So knee-jerk reaction.

If you're asking me why I have a different opinion, that's argument. If you assure others that I don't have that that opinion, that's smothering with consensus.

Global terror to me meant major acts of terrorism in places where you wouldn't normally expect then

England during the seventies to thread. Assuming you're saying that this is new (which isn't clear to me).

1 - the rumsfeilds of the u.s. admin seem to be off the hook for anything they may've done wrong

& 2 - the "dangerously high levels of toxins" in nyc after the collapse going relatively unmentioned.

do these points unnerve anybody else (point 2 i'm especially curious about what the nyc ilxors have to say)¿