Yes, I actually made that comment. I think it was on Wednesday or something. Seriously, I can't remember what day it is beyond the Monday, Tuesday variety. Anyways, it's hard to believe it's already been 5 years. No really, I can't remember what year it happened in. I do remember where I was when I found out. Sitting at home, flipping the channels and stopping on CBC Newsworld and going "What the hell? How the heck can a plane fly into those huge towers?! What's w/ the pilot?" and then going to work at one of those big box supermarkets, and hanging around the Photo/Electronics dept listening, and thinking "those poor people". When I found out it was terrorists, it made sense. Not in the sense that only terrorists could do such a thing and they're horrible bad bad people! But more like, yup the American policies and attitudes are biting them in the @ss.
Are the terrorists' actions justified? Well I suppose in the same way that governments can justify civilian deaths as collateral damage in wars. B/c for the terrorists it is a war, and it doesn't matter what happens to the other side as long as they win. Long gone are the days when they'd have a set target and once it was achieved, both sides would shake hands and help each other rebuild. Until attitudes about conflict change, it'll just be revenge stacked on revenge. Ha ha, actually if it was run entirely by the military-industrial complex they'd sell weapons to each party but generally equal weapons so the war would perpetuate, and the industrial would reaps loads of money rebuilding, until the damage is too great to rebuild, and which they'll move to another area, so until the entire Earth is devastated, then war might stop... isn't that already happening to a degree? Well I know it's a plot of one of the Ace Combat games. Getting a little off topic here. We're trying to look at the continued aftereffects of 9/11.
So the definition of Terrorism from yourDictionary.com is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. " So the key in this definition is -unlawful-. Of course there's state-sponsored terrorism which really can be called operations (example of failed attempt is Bay of Pigs), or just coalition-led war (Operation Iraqi Freedom which was largely led by US, bit of Brit, smattering of other countries lumped under "Coalition of the Willing) all in the name of ...democracy. (See Global Spread of Democracy Poses New Challenge for the US by Donald K. Emmerson for further hilarity of American "democracy"). The American govt is terrorizing its own people, acting unlawfully and profiting from the circumstances. It is not mere happenstance that they passed the Patriot Act(2001) and in the 2004 US election, 9/11 was trumpeted constantly and Bush won by a landslide. How different is constantly invoking fear by mentioning 9/11 from making broadcasts of planned attacks?
In an article in the Sept 7 Edmonton Journal, Sheldon Alberts discusses how America has changed since 9/11: "the sense of vulnerability caused by 9-11 continues to permeate almost every aspect of American life. It has sustained a national obsession with security, dramatically altered expectations of the country's political leadership, generated deep divisions over foreign policy and produced ongoing suspicion about tthe world beyond US borders." Now, being a HUGE fan of Jon Stewart and the Daily Show along w/ The Colbert Report, they constantly point out how often President Bush and his administration love to trot out 9/11 to justify any decision that threatens civil and human rights. The GOP produced the 9/11 boogeyman and have gotten the American public into a state of constant stress. What do people do when they're stressed? Freak out ("A USA Today/Gallup pool in July found 40% of Americans favoured security rules requiring Muslims, including US citizens, to carry special identification" which makes one remember the Star of David that Jews had to wear in Germany before WWII), miss details (illegality of NSA wiretaps, prisoners -still- deprived at Guantanamo Bay), look for any leadership (Bush's job approval rating is 36% [American Research Group] but 55% approve of his handling of the anti-terror campaign [Chron.com], become paranoid ("The number of Americans expressing positive feelings about the United Nations...has fallen to 48% today from 77% before 9-11") and generally act like jerks thus making the rest of the world get fed up (2005, Pew Research Center)(2006, BBC Poll).
And while Bush may say that all this has led to the USA not having been attacked again in the last 5 years, do the terrrorists really need to? America is increasingly divisive over any issue, spending exorbitant amounts of lives and money in Iraq, despised by more and more countries worldwide, and completely paranoid ("Other surveys repeatedly show the Americans are split 50/50 on whether the country is safer now than it was before 9-11"). Now is the craziness perpetuated by the terrorists or the govt? There's much to be said about how you react to things, and it's certainly isn't being helped by the Bush administration. However the Bush govt has managed to deflect much criticism by citing 9/11, and pushed thru several agendas amidst the confusion. Only recently have they been under sustained attack for its errors, and that was only b/c they could no longer use the "unpatriotic" label to stick to its critics. So while Osama bin-Laden may be on wanted posters, the American govt has to also answer for its terrorizing actions. Which may happen in the upcoming 2006 elections for both the Senate and House of Representatives.
