9/11 Remembrance

The news has been plastered with remembrances of 9/11 all day...actually, it started Friday.

I fully realize that this may have been the single most notable event in US history. I realize that almost 3000 people died. But why IS such a big deal being made of the six-month anniversary? I myself didn't see any outgoing remembrances of the anniversary around me (though I only work with 300 people). Am I just an unpatriotic asshole American?

Thoughts?

good excuse to sell more flags
ah......the cynical force is stong in me today

-----
*young* countires, US, Australia comes to mind, don't have particualry much history, so they cling much harder to what they do have. America is also distrubingly patriotic.

Good point, jag, but I dont think thats always true. Not that it isnt right, but remember Britian during WWII? They were diehard patriotic. Evenmore so than we are now. They have a *ton* to cling on to.

But a personal feeling about all this patriotism: the more I see it and hear about it, the more it makes me want to move out of the country to Canada or Australia or such. And this "war on terrorism" is crap, its just giving us an excuse to run the middle east as we see fit. But hey, thats politics.

Yes, it probably isn't doing anything to eradicate al Qaeda and attempting, by force, to keep terrorist attacks from happening again. It's just giving us an excuse to run the Middle East...

Why don't you move to Canada? That way our military doesn't need to waste its efforts protecting a person that has no faith in it.

Man, you ARE irritable today! Anyway, most of the Canucks I've known are just as patriotic. Meanwhile...

"My country right or wrong."
[x] Strongly disagree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree

"My country is more often right than wrong."
[ ] Strongly disagree
[ ] Disagree
[x] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree

"My country is right this time."
[ ] Strongly disagree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Agree
[x] Strongly agree

"most of the Canucks I've known are just as patriotic"

Canadians (myself included) are patriotic, but can hardly be mentioned in the same breath as the United States. Canadian patriotism relies heavily on our national identity as "winter people" (see: Canada's hockey gold medal sweep), but is not nearly as strong as the egotistical "we are the best" type of attitude displayed by the United States.
The United States patriotism is in its military. Far different from Canadians who are far more critical of our national government (see: OSI, the shadow government, or bush's approval rating) which would hardly be acceptable in Canadian society.

Not trying to bash the Americans,

please don't invade us :)

But we are the best. ;)

So what you're saying there is that Canadians are patriotic about good things while USians are patriotic about stupid things.

No, I know that's not really what you're saying...

Here's what happened, I think. I think the US does not value some of the aspects of its culture that make it special, because it is not aware that those things are not universal.

For instance, the US should be extremely patriotic about an incredible individualist/entrepreneurial spirit, which has led to a very long period of incredible development, bringing the world into a new era. But your average USian is not patriotic about that, because they grew up in it and are not really aware of it.

Part of that is because it's so damn big that it's easy to sink into your own culture and not care about what the rest of the world is doing.

Part of that is also because the US is so open that it winds up assimilating the best cultural aspects of its immigrants.

Also, the US has enabled its average people more than most other cultures, I think. The US is famous for its lowbrow culture, but that reflects the first middle class with such enormous buying power. The educated elite may not like "Everybody Loves Raymond", but the average people do, so into the culture mill it goes.

Through that enabling, the underclass has rewarded the culture with deep contributions. In music, for example, blues, rock-n-roll, rock, hip hop -- all come from the underclass and work their way up, rather than music being funded and chosen by a small upperclass and spoon-fed to the masses if at all.

But when you run patriotism through that same process, what happens? We allow our patriotism to be defined by the common man, and that means that it sometimes has a simple feeling. And maybe that feeling is TOO simple. And sure, it means we get a roar from the crowd when we kick somebody's ass.

(Oh brother... somebody hit my pseudo-intellectual switch today.)

Originally posted by Clutz
The United States patriotism is in its military. Far different from Canadians who are far more critical of our national government (see: OSI, the shadow government, or bush's approval rating) which would hardly be acceptable in Canadian society.

Canada's power is more centered in its provinces, right? So I can understand why Canadians might be more critical of their national government than we are (at least right now).

I have to give props to Dubya (Hell has now frozen over.) for something he has said on a regular basis since all this went down: Be patient. Sure, I think it sucks that our troops have been over there for almost 6 months now, but as Americans, we can be so damned impatient. Especially younger Americans. We didn't live through 10+ years of Vietnam or a 6-year World War.

When I mentioned the whole big to-do over 9/11 to my boss, she mentioned that it could be our way of staying vigilant over what happened. That makes some sense to me, and I agree with the "twin tower lights" that went on last night, but I just feel that this hoopla is better reserved for the year remembrance in September. I wish I could put a real thought on it, but this whole thing just gave me an off-putting vibe...too soon maybe? *shrugs* And if this is what happened for 6 months, imagine how crazy it will be IN September.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to work on my personal Sycamore alert system. :)

Perhaps what is off-putting about the six month anniversary rememberances is that they are timed to stir up anger and thirst for vengeance and to bolster support for a wider military response, rather than to remember the victims, whom nobody has forgotten these past six months.

Many of those who lost family in the attack did not want this six month remembrance day, and many expressed an aversion to the images being replayed so soon.

Yet, the government needed to keep the pain near the surface for the military agenda.

But I could be completely wrong, again.

Originally posted by Nic Name
Perhaps what is off-putting about the six month anniversary rememberances is that they are timed to stir up anger and thirst for vengeance and to bolster support for a wider military response...

Yes, their timing had nothing to do with it being the half-year anniversary of the fucking incident.

while im impressed with your ability to swear, you don't really have an argument. no doubt we will remember sept. 11, each and every year for the rest of our lives on 9/11.
But March 11 has no signifigance, the "hoop la" display should have been reserved for the 1 year aniversary.

Americans divided on holiday. Petitions are being circulated for annual holiday to remember September 11, says USA Today.

No mention of March 11, or suggestion of a semi-annual remembrance.

Originally posted by Nic Name
Perhaps what is off-putting about the six month anniversary rememberances is that they are timed to stir up anger and thirst for vengeance and to bolster support for a wider military response, rather than to remember the victims, whom nobody has forgotten these past six months.

Well, I don't know if I'd go THAT far...

But I do agree with part of what you said. It has to be kept fresh in people's minds. It's a given right now that there is going to be SOMETHING about 9/11 or the "War on Terror" on the evening news. For that matter, it has become a basic part of the evening news, right along with sports and weather. And maybe this is where an Office of Strategic Influence MIGHT have been useful.

Originally posted by Clutz
while im impressed with your ability to swear, you don't really have an argument. no doubt we will remember sept. 11, each and every year for the rest of our lives on 9/11.
But March 11 has no signifigance, the "hoop la" display should have been reserved for the 1 year aniversary.

You are missing the point.

It was, from his original post, Nic Name's contention that everything yesterday was "timed to stir up anger and thirst for vengeance and to bolster support for a wider military response". Is it just a <b>coincidence</b> that it's on the half-year anniversary of September 11th?

Have you ever been in a relationship that lasted more than a year? When it was first starting, did you find yourself (or your s/o) marking the one month, two month, three month aniversary? Six months? All the way up to a year? There's something about being able to say "wow, it's been half a year already." I'm guessing that we will *not* see the same thing a year from yesterday. Six months is a milestone. 18 isn't. That's just the way it is.

Yesterday's activities happened because it's been six months since September 11. Not because the US needed to stir up anger and thirst for vengeance. To suggest that is absurd.

dham,

I think you are missing the point.

There is no such thing as a half-year anniversary.

Don't be so oxymoronic.

Main Entry: an.ni.ver.sa.ry
Pronunciation: "a-n&-'v&rs-rE, -'v&r-s&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English anniversarie, from Medieval Latin anniversarium, from Latin, neuter of anniversarius returning annually, from annus year + versus, past participle of vertere to turn -- more at ANNUAL, WORTH
Date: 13th century
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
1 : the annual recurrence of a date marking a notable event
2 : the celebration of an anniversary

and you're the guy who gets irritable when people misuse words.

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Have you ever been in a relationship that lasted more than a year? When it was first starting, did you find yourself (or your s/o) marking the one month, two month, three month aniversary? Six months? All the way up to a year? There's something about being able to say "wow, it's been half a year already." I'm guessing that we will *not* see the same thing a year from yesterday. Six months is a milestone. 18 isn't. That's just the way it is.

Question for the general audience: Is there anyone on here who can remember the Challenger explosion...or even Pearl Harbor? I can't recall the media making the same type of deal over Challenger...maybe they did though. *shrugs*

Yesterday's activities happened because it's been six months since September 11. Not because the US needed to stir up anger and thirst for vengeance. To suggest that is absurd.

Maybe it's both. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would have gone off and did their own thing. Sure...I don't doubt that. But you also had the State of New Jersey, the City of New York, and the US government getting involved as well. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but you never know.

from MSNBC

March 11 — New York City marked the six months since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on Monday with moments of silence and a memorial of light symbolizing the destruction of the World Trade Center and the thousands of Americans lost that day. In Washington, President Bush said the world was stirred “to anger and to action” by the events of Sept. 11, and vowed to help other nations “prepare for the battles ahead” in the war against terrorism.

...

Instead of closing his speech with his standard “God bless America,” Bush ended by saying: “God bless our coalition.”

and then dispatched Cheney to firm up resolve of Allied nations for an attack against Iraq, which is not yet implicated in the September 11 attacks.

Most of the remembrance was not connected to the government.

All of it was optional, and a lot of people decided to opt in.

And I'll repeat what I said earlier about the paranoid left. Really making the paranoid right look pretty good by comparison. When the whole thing started, we were going to carpet bomb the Afghans? Then we were going to starve the Afghans to death? Then we were targeting civilians? Then we'd killed 3500 of them? We were mistreating prisoners? False, false, false, false, false.

The carpet bombing is right here, and it's not bombs, it's stupid rumors from speculative, wishful-thinking pundits.

And if you think that remembrance of the last terrorist attack gives an administration the political will to wage war, <i>just imagine what another terrorist attack would do</i>. Given the choice of remembering the last one - and experiencing another one because we didn't have the will to continue the damn effort - I say let's take a TV night out to remember the last one.

As long as we know why we're doing it.

Then we were going to starve the Afghans to death? Then we were targeting civilians? Then we'd killed 3500 of them? We were mistreating prisoners? False, false, false, false, false.

er.....................over 3500 afghans have died...........

As for mistreating prisoners, thats ambigious, giving them no legal status/rights, while being held in open air cages is a tad questionable....

No, that was a theory advanced by a single source, and it had no basis.

hmmmmm....
Have to check on that. Until then - i find it hard to believe at least 1000 people have died, and i woudln't find 3500 hard to believe.

Originally posted by sycamore
I fully realize that this may have been the single most notable event in US history. I realize that almost 3000 people died. But why IS such a big deal being made of the six-month anniversary?

Pearl Harbor was, by far, the most notable event in US history. But two things have happened. 1) the bottom of what the firemen called "The Pile" has been reached. 2) The Administration is trying to justify unilateral attacks, anti-missile defense systems, a massivie military buildup, and even nuclear missile retragetings.

Gen Zinni is in the Israel to negotiate peace? No. He is there to separate the Palestinian Israeli conflict from a unilateral attack on Iraq. Keep pushing the WTC attacks to justify an attack on Iraq. A six month anniversary is just another way of promoting war.

Saddam exists because many in the George Sr administration screwed up. Those political types failed to perform their jobs. Now they are trying to correct their mistake by finding an excuse to attack Saddam.

This is how we got into VietNam. First we attacked a soveign nation. When that did not work, we created a Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify open attack by full American forces. Saddam is there whether we like it or not. Had George Sr officials (Cheney, et al) been doing their job, the uprisings would have deposed Saddam upfront. But when Swartzkopf accepted Iraqi surrender, he had no - read absolutely NO - guidelines from the Politcal incompetants in Washington. Now those same political types want to correct their mistake - with a unilateral attack on Iraq. It is, in part, why we are building new military bases from Bulgaria to Kazakistan.

George Jr's administration is so out of touch and so moved to make this unilateral attack that they don't hear the entire Arab world demanding he address the Israel situation. Instead George blames the victims - the Palestinians - for the violence. He blames the Palestinians for not cracking down on violence even when Israeli aircraft and tanks instead attack Palestinians police stations and government officials. George Jr. supports the extemist Sharon who is singlely the reason for the second intafada which started Septemer 2000.

Be scared of the current administration with it Office of Strategic Information and other extremist titles like Office of Homeland Security. Restrictions even on biological research are popping up everywhere with rhetoric that we are at war. We were more at war between Aug 1 1990 and 2001. The justification for further security has now diminished - but Geroge Jr wants to attack other nations. This extremist President is using every propaganda tool available to get us to accept a unilateral attack on Iraq. An so we have more reasons to look at Ground Zero - to make us foam at the mouth for the next attck on the "Axis of Evil" - another idea from the politically insecure.

Just a quick point -

Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount is widely considered to be the touch-off point of the second intifada. While this is almost certainly the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back, it is hardly the sole reason for the current uprising. Like I've said before, thousands of years of conflict between Arabs and Hebrews have taken their toll such that, between many, there is hatred for the other. It's sad, but it's true.

That having been said, it is not as if Sharon went to the Temple Mount and had a good time raping 10 year old Palestinian girls. A visit to a holy place should hardly be justification for an intifada. The Palestinian extremists were not provoked physically by Israel in September 2000. In effect, the Palestinian extremists threw the first punch. Therefore, they <b>can</b> be blamed for the current violence, simply because <b>they started it</b>.

I agree a lot with the Palestinian cause, and I want them to have their own country. I want them to be independent of Israel. But they give Israel <b>so much justification</b> for attacking them. If they would stop doing it, they might get what they want.

It's a sad situation...

"Pearl Harbor was, by far, the most notable event in US history." It was most notable for a certain generation of folks. The firing on Sumter would rival it in significance. You are probably right, however, that 911, except in the unlikely event GWB allows it to lead to global conflagration, probably won't get top billing. Its a matter of what is made of it or what comes of it...

Jag, on the number of deaths, this paragraph is part of an essay that'll be in Dissent magazine.

"A few left academics have tried to figure out how many civilians actually died in Afghanistan, aiming at as high a figure as possible, on the assumption, apparently, that if the number is greater than the number of people killed in the Towers, the war is unjust. At the moment, most of the numbers are propaganda; there is no reliable accounting. But the claim that the numbers matter in just this way, that the 3120th death determines the injustice of the war, is in any case wrong. It denies one of the most basic and best understood moral distinctions: between premeditated murder and unintended killing. And the denial isn’t accidental, as if the people making it just forgot about, or didn’t know about, the everyday moral world. The denial is willful: unintended killing by Americans in Afghanistan counts as murder. This can’t be true anywhere else, for anybody else."

Wrong. We are using a method of killing which is far from discriminate. We know there will be civilian losses but we think a low number confirmed will be acceptable. We can't call those killings accidental because we intend to drop bombs which are not precise weapons and will cause "collateral damage". They are being killed in their homes by our fucking bombs because their lives don't have any value to us outside of fucking public opinion polls. Thats just bullshit, we are feeding ourselves so we don't have to feel bad about it.

Are you privy to some inside information about United States Wartime Policy that the rest of us aren't? 'Cause otherwise, that's just speculation.

Well, yes, Rumsfeld actually addressed this on Friday. He did note that there are civilian deaths but that it's pretty much impossible to figure out how many. I think the context of his statement was that it's nowhere near some of the numbers that have come out. I.e., <i>lower</i>.

But Griff, you underestimate both the public's political will to conduct this war, and the lengths to which the US has gone to prevent civilian deaths. The public would be quite happy to pound Afghanistan into a fine dust, as long as someone found bin Laden's DNA somewhere in the sifted remains. But the military at its highest levels have put just enormous technology into preventing civilian deaths.

Take a look at ZZZ Online , issue #120, in which some very smart folks have figured out something the military aren't even telling us. I'll summarize. The first target in modern warfare is the electrical system, because the US forces have excellent night vision and it throws the enemy into total disarray. The old way of killing the electrical system? Take a big bomb, blow up the entire generating station. Even if it's a DAM. The new way? They've developed a bomblet filled with carbon fibers. This spreads like confetti when detonated. They detonate it around the power lines leading to the generators. The carbon fibers conduct electricity, shorting the lines. The sudden lack of resistance causes the generators to spin too fast, and they seize up.

The old way could kill thousands. The new way *might* kill someone standing next to the generator -- if it failed spectacularly. (But you would have to be standing next to an obvious target during a bombing run.)

I am heartened by the fact that this technology was used and we never heard about it. Consider: <i>the US had a "secret weapon" and it turns out to have been developed to save lives.</i> I think that's awesome!

We should be enormously happy with the US military's work at preventing casualties. Of course it's politically driven, but they have accomplished a great deal. There's plotting of bomb blasts and choice of munition based on that. There's bunker busters, which only detonate when they reach their target.

And in a war where it starts without a base in country, on the other side of the world, in a country dominated by tribes (!), with two different languages, with half the intelligence community desperately needed to do other things, after a surprise attack, in one month, with no US casualties until way into the whole thing. It is, when you step back and look at it, an incredible achievment.

Twenty years ago we would have carpet-bombed. Today we are smarter.

"A few left academics have tried to figure out how many civilians actually died in Afghanistan, aiming at as high a figure as possible, on the assumption, apparently, that if the number is greater than the number of people killed in the Towers, the war is unjust. At the moment, most of the numbers are propaganda; there is no reliable accounting. But the claim that the numbers matter in just this way, that the 3120th death determines the injustice of the war, is in any case wrong. It denies one of the most basic and best understood moral distinctions: between premeditated murder and unintended killing. And the denial isn’t accidental, as if the people making it just forgot about, or didn’t know about, the everyday moral world. The denial is willful: unintended killing by Americans in Afghanistan counts as murder. This can’t be true anywhere else, for anybody else."

*sighs*
While it is a moral distinction, personally I don't think it makes a shred of difference allot of innocent people died, no matter what way you look at it. As for smart weapons, once again, there is little change in reality. Instead of carpet bombing, we have precision, but at the same time, I’m sure one hell of allot of innocent people died why? Because the US didn't dare do the dirty work itself. By basically buying local militias to do nearly all the real ground fighting, these groups, as well as carrying out their own revenge killings have harnessed the US, under the guise of apparent al queda camps, to kill innocents, wedding, villages, schools have been bombed as well as raids by specops troops on apparent al queda bases that turn out to be a rival warlord's troops. Our guns may have got smarter but our on-the-ground Intel has got weaker, a fundamental weakens in a place like Afghanistan. I'm nitpicking I know but the fact is I don't accept pseudo-moral justifications, or we-don't-know innocent death counts.

I doubt the counter-electrical bomb was developed to save lives, though that may be a side effect. More likely reasons to develop such a thing would be to make a lighter bomb (thus more choice in delivery vehicle), and to preserve as much infrastructure as possible (because if you're trying to take -- or RE-take -- territory it's best if you can take it largely intact).