Perspective on the "War on Terror"

[viscus]

Number of people killed in the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC: 2,974

Number of fatal traffic accidents in the USA in 2005: 39,189
Number of murders in the USA in 2004: 16,137

So, in modern history, America has lost almost 3,000 people to terrorism, and we lose around 55,000 people to roadways and violent crime every year. Taking this into consideration, what would be considered acceptable civilian losses in the "War on Terror?" Most would say zero, and we've been able to achieve that since after September 11th, 2001. But is this acceptable if it costs diverting our attention and resources away from addressing traffic safety and violent crime, which continues to cost several times more lives that 9/11 did?

[delicti]

We should totally start bombing our highways. I decare I-95 and Rt-101 the new Axis of evil!

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by viscus

Number of people killed in the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC: 2,974

Number of fatal traffic accidents in the USA in 2005: 39,189
Number of murders in the USA in 2004: 16,137

Someone else tried this one. Let me ask this: How many of those deaths happened in one day and were attributed to one group attacking the American way of life? Please calculate that one and we'll see just how impressive the comparison is.

So, in modern history, America has lost almost 3,000 people to terrorism

What is modern history? Because if in includes the 80s and 90s, you're missing a huge chunk of statistics. Might also want to chalk up al-Qaeda in Iraq attacks as terrorist killings too.

Most would say zero, and we've been able to achieve that since after September 11th, 2001.

So no American has died abroad due to terrorism? Really? Ol' Daniel Pearl and many others like him would tend to disagree... if they hadn't been murdered by terrorists, of course.

But is this acceptable if it costs diverting our attention and resources away from addressing traffic safety and violent crime, which continues to cost several times more lives that 9/11 did?

Perhaps you're entirely right. And within the law enforcement community, we should give equal importance to finding a hit-and-run driver as we should a mass murdering gunman who killed some 45 people and continues to chalk up more victims every day. There should be absolutely no hierarchy of importance attributed to any one individual, and therefore we shouldn't offer any rewards for the FBI's most wanted.

Matter of fact, we should do away with the FBI's most wanted, because their high contributions to federal crimes don't measure up to the drunk guy in Colorado who beat his wife to death one night. They all contribute to the same pool of statistics... why break it down into quantitative measures?!?!?!

Just because one individual takes up a HUGE chunk of the pie-chart for murders doesn't make him any more important in apprehending or stopping! Makes total sense.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

What is modern history? Because if in includes the 80s and 90s, you're missing a huge chunk of statistics. Might also want to chalk up al-Qaeda in Iraq attacks as terrorist killings too.

So no American has died abroad due to terrorism? Really? Ol' Daniel Pearl and many others like him would tend to disagree... if they hadn't been murdered by terrorists, of course.

To clarify, within the last few decades, on American soil.

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Perhaps you're entirely right. And within the law enforcement community, we should give equal importance to finding a hit-and-run driver as we should a mass murdering gunman who killed some 45 people and continues to chalk up more victims every day. There should be absolutely no hierarchy of importance attributed to any one individual, and therefore we shouldn't offer any rewards for the FBI's most wanted.

Matter of fact, we should do away with the FBI's most wanted, because their high contributions to federal crimes don't measure up to the drunk guy in Colorado who beat his wife to death one night. They all contribute to the same pool of statistics... why break it down into quantitative measures?!?!?!

Just because one individual takes up a HUGE chunk of the pie-chart for murders doesn't make him any more important in apprehending or stopping! Makes total sense.

I'm merely suggesting that we reevaluate our priorities as a matter of national policy, because it seems that the average citizen has a lot more to fear from the highway or other citizen than terrorism.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Someone else tried this one. Let me ask this: How many of those deaths happened in one day and were attributed to one group attacking the American way of life? Please calculate that one and we'll see just how impressive the comparison is.

That would be me you are referring to. I didn't then, and still don't see how this argument might be relevant to the point I was making, which was simply that the amount of anguish and fear people feel over terrorism is totally out of whack in view of the statistically negligible danger it presents them. People just get all worked up over stuff that is dramatic. Everyone is convinced he is going to die in a terrorist bombing or hurricane or something, when you're much more likely to just have a heart attack or get creamed by a drunk driver. Unfortunately, there are certain people in the world who are very happy to use that fear for their own purposes.

The question of priorities is different, and more complicated. Instead of picking a side, I'll just point out that the priority of the current regime is not reducing terror. Its real priority appears to be the "War on Terror", which has little to do with terror apart from having the word in its name, and is in main a pretext for a massive oil grab that is fast increasing terror. That's what the CIA said would happen before the war, and it's what they say is happening now. So if our choices are (A) "reduce crime" or "reduce traffic fatalities" or whatever on the one hand, and (B) "reduce terror" on the other hand, the current game plan is (C) "neither of the above - make things worse instead".

But all of that is as may be. What provoked me to respond this time was actually the phrase "attacking the American way of life", which is trash. I mean, what does that even mean? It was people that died on September 11, not a way of life (although again, the administration is doing their best on this front). There was no attack on a way of life except in the same sense that you have an attack on a way of life any time there is an attack on people, which is... well... always. Unless the victims' way of life is to kill themselves all day long, or something.

It's actually much worse than gibberish, of course. It's one of these handy little manufactured memes that is intended to obscure the real facts so that the powerful can continue going about their dirty work. It evokes the President's comic book version of September 11, in which the hijakers did what they did because they were lashing out at miniskirts, sports cars, and rock music. Heaven forbid that we should actually admit to ourselves that foreign policy might have something to do with it.

Perpetuating this transparent lie is irresponsible.

Drake

[wonderland]

I think the War on Terror has everything to do with terror. It's been largely about the administration's ability to capitalize on it, to use the threat of terrorism to convince otherwise moderate people to jump on the bandwagon, or at the very least to avoid having their policy questioned. A single incident, which was remarkable not because of the violence or the death toll, but simply because it happened on American soil, has been used to justify years of fear-based legislation, loss of civil rights, and war-mongering. Can you imagine the ramifications if all the countries we've messed with over the years responded the way we have?

[CptSternn]

Viscus -

Ken Olbermann did a bit on this a while back. He pointed out since 9/11 that over 300,000 Americans have died from gun shot wounds in America, yet not one politician has attempted to change that, and not one federal dollar has been spent even investigating the issue.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by viscus

I'm merely suggesting that we reevaluate our priorities as a matter of national policy, because it seems that the average citizen has a lot more to fear from the highway or other citizen than terrorism.

At this very moment? Yes. What happens if extremists seize control of Riyadh and cut off trade with the United States, or if groups overrun Baghdad and lock up the Persian Gulf? Then it becomes not only every American's problem, it becomes the world's problem. The world's economic problems, on top of ours, become double the trouble.

Not to mention the War on Terror started with Afghanistan. Unless you're a conspiracy theorist that thinks we're picking on al-Qaeda, few will argue that overthrowing the Taliban was a bad move. Still, that po-dunk group came close to crippling our economy by knocking down those towers and sending a shock-wave throughout American society. They did it all from Afghanistan and they could do it from Somalia, or Kashmir, or the Western Sahara, or Sudan even. Hence we take a much more post-9/11 approach to stopping the formation of Taliban-style rule in any one country. Perfect example is the situation on the ground in Somalia right now and the overthrow of fundamentalists from Mogadishu last year.

[d.Nox]

Still, that po-dunk group came close to crippling our economy by knocking down those towers

THE ECONOMY (as Kontan would have it) barely noticed the towers come down. Even the fear-mongering and general overreaction that followed weren't much more than a slap on the wrist to the American Mammon.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

I didn't then, and still don't see how this argument might be relevant to the point I was making, which was simply that the amount of anguish and fear people feel over terrorism is totally out of whack in view of the statistically negligible danger it presents them.

What the public perceives is mostly due in large part to the fact that current measures taken have prevented such. The threat is VERY real that we face and it's impact is a hundred times more important to all Americans that any one single car accident. Apparently most folks need to SEE the carnage in order to know the threat is real, rather than understand the consequences that foiled attacks would have had.

The effect that a bombing of a plane would have on the airline industry would be devastating. It would hit the stock market pretty hard and should another major attack happen in America, you're going to see even more security popping up. The difference between terrorism and ordinary car accidents and manslaughter crimes is that one can be prevented through the use of government funds and the others require the use of psychics from movies like, "The Minority Report." That, and the former has a greater impact on society when it's successfully carried out.

So if our choices are (A) "reduce crime" or "reduce traffic fatalities" or whatever on the one hand, and (B) "reduce terror" on the other hand, the current game plan is (C) "neither of the above - make things worse instead".

Well, aside from this being an opinion as opposed to fact, I'll not comment on the conclusive end you've come to in your equation. However, I'd like to know what your draft legislation would be for reducing domestic abuse, murders, and ****. I'd like to know what the tangible source of all this crime is so we can stop it.

But all of that is as may be. What provoked me to respond this time was actually the phrase "attacking the American way of life", which is trash. I mean, what does that even mean? It was people that died on September 11, not a way of life (although again, the administration is doing their best on this front). There was no attack on a way of life except in the same sense that you have an attack on a way of life any time there is an attack on people, which is... well... always. Unless the victims' way of life is to kill themselves all day long, or something.

Ummm... let me just go ahead and pick out a broad definition of terrorism for you:

Terrorism in the modern sense is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals.

Yeah... I think it's a little more than obvious that civilians are going to die in terrorist attacks and are the victims. But for what reason did they die? Are you saying they were murdered for the simple sake of murdering people? That there was no ideological aim behind hitting the Pentagon and one of the symbolic epicenters of our economy? Were they just as good a place to kill scores of people as any?

When someone pulls off a well-calculated attack like that on very specific targets, then airs messages telling Americans to convert to Islam or else there'll be more, I'd say that's a very obvious attack on the American way of life. Unless I'm mistaken in thinking that every American's right to freedom of religion came from the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by d.Nox

THE ECONOMY (as Kontan would have it) barely noticed the towers come down. Even the fear-mongering and general overreaction that followed weren't much more than a slap on the wrist to the American Mammon.

Barely noticed, eh? Yeah, I guess it missed out on the fact that the stock market was closed for a week straight. Course that wouldn't have any kind of major effect on anything. And the airline industry... pssh... please. Tens of thousands of layoffs, plummeting shares, and near-constant teetering on bankruptcy? That's nothing. And the sharp drop in the value of the dollar? Obviously didn't phase anyone or anything, especially foreign economies that saw upwards to 9.2% drop in stocks.

[d.Nox]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Barely noticed, eh? Yeah, I guess it missed out on the fact that the stock market was closed for a week straight. Course that wouldn't have any kind of major effect on anything. And the airline industry... pssh... please. Tens of thousands of layoffs, plummeting shares, and near-constant teetering on bankruptcy? That's nothing. And the sharp drop in the value of the dollar? Obviously didn't phase anyone or anything, especially foreign economies that saw upwards to 9.2% drop in stocks.

And for all of that, there was no depression, and even the recession (which, it should be noted, was getting started before 9/11, and had as much to do with the dot-com bubble than terrorism) wasn't that bad.

Yes, the stock market plunged--again, our overreaction--but even so, it recovered pretty well within a couple years; in the meantime, we didn't see rampant inflation, mass unemployment, or any other sign that the economy was broken, as opposed to merely injured.

Airlines? ...please. They've been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for decades; not one major carrier went under. A few thousand jobs lost is small beans to the national economy.

As for the drop in the value of the dollar, it's a broad enough measure that I don't think you can tie it to a single event--especially since it continued dropping for several years after 9/11, which seems to indicate that the attack isn't the only factor in play.

In sum? Yes, 9/11 wasn't good for the economy, but to say that al-Qaeda "almost crippled" it is hyperbole bordering on blatant propaganda. Most people saw next to no change in their standard of living, and much of the bad effects were due to our own mismanagement.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by d.Nox

And for all of that, there was no depression, and even the recession (which, it should be noted, was getting started before 9/11, and had as much to do with the dot-com bubble than terrorism) wasn't that bad.

Look at any graph of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and tell me the hit that it took in late September, 2001 and early October, 2001 was from a dot-com bubble. Do it with a straight face. It drops off the face of the planet on the 11th and hiccups its way back up slowly after the markets reopened.

That drop off was the biggest loss in one single day for the Dow Jones in the entire history of the New York Stock Exchange.

Yes, the stock market plunged--again, our overreaction--but even so, it recovered pretty well within a couple years; in the meantime, we didn't see rampant inflation, mass unemployment, or any other sign that the economy was broken, as opposed to merely injured.

If any of that happened, I'd have said that al-Qaeda, "crippled our economy," as opposed to, "came close to crippling our economy."

Airlines? ...not one major carrier went under.

Yeah, thank friggin' God for the Treasury Department's, "Air Transportation Stablization Board." Take a guess when that office was created and what it was created specifically for. I'll give you a hint; it has to do with life-support.

As for the drop in the value of the dollar, it's a broad enough measure that I don't think you can tie it to a single event--especially since it continued dropping for several years after 9/11, which seems to indicate that the attack isn't the only factor in play.

No one ever can, but closing the New York Stock Exchange for a week and starting it back up on several hiccups didn't do much for it's value.

In sum? Yes, 9/11 wasn't good for the economy, but to say that al-Qaeda "almost crippled" it is hyperbole bordering on blatant propaganda. Most people saw next to no change in their standard of living, and much of the bad effects were due to our own mismanagement.

Most people didn't... the ones living outside of New York, of course, didn't have to deal with the mop-up effect of a heavily damaged tourism industry.

Considering the New York Stock Exchange has only closed up shop a few (can count them on one hand with fingers to spare) times in history, chalking up one of those to a major terror attack is pretty lofty. Especially since more devastating attacks (i.e. bombs) have gone off closer to the market (i.e. right out front) in the past with fewer repercussions.

If you can get the markets to close for a week, you can pat yourself on the back for fucking up someone's checkbook. Some industries still haven't recovered.

Is it the Apocalypse? Hell no. Capitalism is a beautiful thing sometimes.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Are you saying they were murdered for the simple sake of murdering people? That there was no ideological aim behind hitting the Pentagon and one of the symbolic epicenters of our economy? Were they just as good a place to kill scores of people as any?

The motivations were, as you imply, ideological. The targets were chosen, wisely, for maximum damage. The gravamen was American foreign policy. Not a way of life.

When someone pulls off a well-calculated attack like that on very specific targets, then airs messages telling Americans to convert to Islam or else there'll be more, I'd say that's a very obvious attack on the American way of life. Unless I'm mistaken in thinking that every American's right to freedom of religion came from the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution.

Before I respond to that, let me pose one question and one request.

1) Are you seriously alleging that the 9/11 attacks were about converting America to Islam?

2) Could you source the message to which you are referring? I found one or two things that could be it, but I want to make sure I am looking at the right thing before I reply.

Drake

[d.Nox]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Look at any graph of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and tell me the hit that it took in late September, 2001 and early October, 2001 was from a dot-com bubble. Do it with a straight face. It drops off the face of the planet on the 11th and hiccups its way back up slowly after the markets reopened.

I'm not claiming that the initial drop wasn't the result of the attacks; I'm claiming that the slowness of the recovery had to do primarily with weakness in sectors unrelated to it.

That drop off was the biggest loss in one single day for the Dow Jones in the entire history of the New York Stock Exchange.

The stock market is the most fickle of all economic indicators; only in the long run--a year, at least--is it much of an indicator of the overall health of the economy.

If any of that happened, I'd have said that al-Qaeda, "crippled our economy," as opposed to, "came close to crippling our economy."

Do you know what a crippled economy looks like? I'll give you a hint: massive unemployment, rampant inflation, corporations in trouble across broad sectors, shrinking GDP--none of which happened, or came close to happening, even in the examples you're claiming.

Yeah, thank friggin' God for the Treasury Department's, "Air Transportation Stablization Board." Take a guess when that office was created and what it was created specifically for. I'll give you a hint; it has to do with life-support.

One industry is not the economy. Corporate subsidies are nothing new.

Most people didn't... the ones living outside of New York, of course, didn't have to deal with the mop-up effect of a heavily damaged tourism industry.

One city's tourism is not the economy.

Considering the New York Stock Exchange has only closed up shop a few (can count them on one hand with fingers to spare) times in history, chalking up one of those to a major terror attack is pretty lofty. Especially since more devastating attacks (i.e. bombs) have gone off closer to the market (i.e. right out front) in the past with fewer repercussions.

If you can get the markets to close for a week, you can pat yourself on the back for fucking up someone's checkbook. Some industries still haven't recovered.

I'm not saying 9/11 didn't have an impact. It hurt people, it hurt firms. But in terms of its impact on the economy as a whole, it was a blip. Even if we were to attribute the entire recession of the early 90's solely to al-Qaeda--which would be a gross exaggeration which even the most rabid fear-mongers haven't stooped to--it was still a far cry from destroying our economy.

All I'm saying is enough with the dramatics. 9/11 didn't destroy us; it didn't even seriously threaten our national well-being. Find a new bogeyman.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

However, I'd like to know what your draft legislation would be for reducing domestic abuse, murders, and ****. I'd like to know what the tangible source of all this crime is so we can stop it.

Not to cut back in before you respond to my most recent post, but it occurs to me that you might take exception to my choosing not to answer this point.

My answer is, as stated before, that I'm not enthusastic about taking a side on that issue at the moment. What my thoughts might be on whether there are avenues to effectively reduce traffic accidents or crime or not, and what they might be if there are, and whether it's more worth our time to focus on those than on anti-terrorism, etc., is therefore immaterial.

I can jump into that area of the conversation, if you positively want me to, but from my perspective it is tangental.

Drake

[delicti]

The idea that any deaths are equatable to each other is as callous as saying that some deaths are worth more than others.

We clearly have agencies trying to take care of the other endangering factors in American life; their work does nothing to invalidate the work of groups that are taking care of other threats.

The logic of the initial premise is that by spending more money on the other agencies they will become more effective; thus Americans will be safer. There is no evidence that I can find (or has been supplied) that shows that this is true. Furthermore, unless you are able to prove that ignoring one threat in favor of another will actually be beneficial, you have a lot of uphill work to go with proving yourself right at all.

It is an interesting observation, but it loses its usefulness when trying to apply it as anything more than that.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by delicti

The logic of the initial premise is that by spending more money on the other agencies they will become more effective; thus Americans will be safer. There is no evidence that I can find (or has been supplied) that shows that this is true. Furthermore, unless you are able to prove that ignoring one threat in favor of another will actually be beneficial, you have a lot of uphill work to go with proving yourself right at all.

Well, it doesn't have much to do with road deaths or murders, but take the handling of the Katrina disaster. Would the federal government's response have been so inept if FEMA and several other agencies hadn't been reorganized into the Department of Homeland Security and reoriented mainly into counter-terrorism? Perhaps, perhaps not.

I don't think we should ignore one threat in favor of another, I was just observing that the average citizen has a lot more to fear from several other things that the government could properly address than terrorism, and it seems kind of silly how the threat of terrorism generates so much political capital (or at least it did until the Iraq occupation started going to hell sideways).

Besides, the proper way to address terrorism against America, if my thoughts are to be believed, would be to abolish the CIA and drastically pull back the US global military presence. But that's a discussion I'd rather not get into here.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

The motivations were, as you imply, ideological. The targets were chosen, wisely, for maximum damage. The gravamen was American foreign policy. Not a way of life.

If you wanted a maximum body count, there are better places to hit than the Pentagon. There are also better times to hit places than 9am and if you really wanted high death tolls, you wouldn't hit the buildings so high up and give so many people time to evacuate. The first mark on the original WTC bombing was to kill 250,000 people. 9/11 never came within a reasonable fraction of that.

They went for the symbolic representations that these places held; the Pentagon was the symbol of American military might and the WTC was our economic might. They wanted the twins to fall down, hence hitting them so high.

But on another note, al-Qaeda's messages that Americans should convert to Islam is seemingly connected to the idea of their extended Islamic Caliphate, which was originally designed to encompass half the world. This is very well in line with the teachings of Sayyid Qutb, who apparently didn't like his stay here in America long ago and wrote doctrines on the soulessness of Western society without Islam. These doctrines later went on to be called, "The ideas that shaped al-Qaeda." Certainly Ayman al-Zawahiri incorporated these into his 1998 fatwa against the United States and the ideas are every-so-prevalent in his own writings and broadcast messages.

Before I respond to that, let me pose one question and one request.

1) Are you seriously alleging that the 9/11 attacks were about converting America to Islam?

2) Could you source the message to which you are referring? I found one or two things that could be it, but I want to make sure I am looking at the right thing before I reply.

Drake

1.) 9/11 was about weakening American influence in the Middle East by trying to strike at our military and economic epicenters so they could do as they please in the region and soon the world. The plan was to wage war on various state governments there in the region, then beyond that region to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate with Jerusalem under Muslim control. From the various messages that have come out of al-Qaeda, their plans don't stop there, as an Islamic conquest of ancient proportions is on the docket when they write doctrines on overrunning, "un-Islamic" states.

Again, more ideology is behind the fatwa used to justify these attacks than is normally published in quick-reference guides. Sayyid Qutb's doctrines show enormous influence in the rhetoric and writings by prominent al-Qaeda members who have time and time again denounced the concepts of democracy and secularism.

2.) http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/as...ape/index.html

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by d.Nox

I'm not claiming that the initial drop wasn't the result of the attacks; I'm claiming that the slowness of the recovery had to do primarily with weakness in sectors unrelated to it.

Dot-com bubbles don't generally pull down the economies of several different nations by upwards to 10% while everyone's getting back on the saddle. Closing the markets for several days had major effects on the price of energy and unrelated issues to 9/11 that had more to do with the fact that there was no trading going on for a rather long period in the grand scheme of things.

The stock market is the most fickle of all economic indicators; only in the long run--a year, at least--is it much of an indicator of the overall health of the economy.

It's actually pretty joined at the hip with the economy, actually. But yes, long-term trends tend to yield the long-term heath. The economy can take a dive at any moment over any sudden, fast-paced trend. The Great Depression and the 1987 "Black Monday" were nice handy examples of that. Thankfully the Federal Reserve and other government bodies have a sound policy for balancing these things out before the run-away train of speculation and trade fears cause events like those to repeat themselves.

Do you know what a crippled economy looks like? I'll give you a hint: massive unemployment, rampant inflation, corporations in trouble across broad sectors, shrinking GDP--none of which happened, or came close to happening, even in the examples you're claiming.

Again, thankfully the Federal Reserve threw billions upon billions of dollars into the financial system so our largest banks wouldn't cause a major ripple effect throughout the rest of the economy by failing to meet the needs of having enough reserves. Thank God interest rates were cut by half a point as well. Still didn't entirely prevent major sell-offs for that first week or so of the markets opening again, but it eventually helped us get back on track.

Stabilizing the economy didn't happen on it's own. Had it been left to, it likely would have gone into a more significant recession due to sell-offs that would have left numerous industries in greater trouble than if Greenspan had stepped in.

One industry is not the economy. Corporate subsidies are nothing new.

But it certainly contends the idea that the airline industry didn't really take a dick up the ass for 9/11.

One city's tourism is not the economy.

But it certainly contends the idea that the standard of living was hunky dory for most Americans.

I'm not saying 9/11 didn't have an impact. It hurt people, it hurt firms. But in terms of its impact on the economy as a whole, it was a blip. Even if we were to attribute the entire recession of the early 90's solely to al-Qaeda--which would be a gross exaggeration which even the most rabid fear-mongers haven't stooped to--it was still a far cry from destroying our economy.

All I'm saying is enough with the dramatics. 9/11 didn't destroy us; it didn't even seriously threaten our national well-being. Find a new bogeyman.

Who said it destroyed us? Causing the markets to close down for an extended period of time is a great achievement for any group, especially one that doesn't use soap and wipes their asses with their hands. It caused a disrupt in the financial system and it certainly wailed on the markets to the extent that the Federal Reserve had to be pulled into emergency meetings and the government had to greatly expand it's efforts to prevent industries from being laid to ruins.

Did it all pan out really well? Well, 6 years later it's obviously easy to look back and trivialize all of that hard work and write it off as nothing, just like it's easy for a lot of people to say, "9/11: What's the big deal anymore?"

[d.Nox]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Dot-com bubbles don't generally pull down the economies of several different nations by upwards to 10% while everyone's getting back on the saddle. Closing the markets for several days had major effects on the price of energy and unrelated issues to 9/11 that had more to do with the fact that there was no trading going on for a rather long period in the grand scheme of things.

By 9/11, the nation had lost 1 million jobs since March. Over the next two years, it lost a total of 3 million. Meaning that we were well into the recession beforehand.

Thankfully the Federal Reserve and other government bodies have a sound policy for balancing these things out before the run-away train of speculation and trade fears cause events like those to repeat themselves.

Again, thankfully the Federal Reserve threw billions upon billions of dollars into the financial system so our largest banks wouldn't cause a major ripple effect throughout the rest of the economy by failing to meet the needs of having enough reserves. Thank God interest rates were cut by half a point as well. Still didn't entirely prevent major sell-offs for that first week or so of the markets opening again, but it eventually helped us get back on track.

Stabilizing the economy didn't happen on it's own. Had it been left to, it likely would have gone into a more significant recession due to sell-offs that would have left numerous industries in greater trouble than if Greenspan had stepped in.

Of course we took measures to fix the damage. The fact that we were able to do so says that overall, the damage wasn't too bad. We're not arguing what would have happened had every economist gone on sabbatical after 9/11; we're discussing what actually happened.

But it certainly contends the idea that the airline industry didn't really take a dick up the ass for 9/11.

Never said it didn't.

But it certainly contends the idea that the standard of living was hunky dory for most Americans.

Not really. "Most Americans" are not from New York; most Americans continued on more or less as they had, economically.

Who said it destroyed us? Causing the markets to close down for an extended period of time is a great achievement for any group, especially one that doesn't use soap and wipes their asses with their hands. It caused a disrupt in the financial system and it certainly wailed on the markets to the extent that the Federal Reserve had to be pulled into emergency meetings and the government had to greatly expand it's efforts to prevent industries from being laid to ruins.

You said it "nearly crippled" our economy; I said the economy took a hit--and in the long run, anything we can pull out of in a few years is only a little hit--and kept going. Of course it took effort to get it back on track--but it was an effort that went unnoticed by the pocketbooks of the vast majority.

I'm tired of this conversation; in three long posts you've not come up with any evidence for your assertion that al-Qaeda "nearly crippled" our economy. You've just reiterated the same horror stories. As I said in the beginning, they're small beans in the big picture, however devastating they were to those involved.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by d.Nox

By 9/11, the nation had lost 1 million jobs since March. Over the next two years, it lost a total of 3 million. Meaning that we were well into the recession beforehand.

You're expanding the time-line way too much. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was pretty much rising back to it's pre-9/11 levels within several months. Again... I'll reiterate that dot-com bubbles don't send shockwaves through the world markets as costly at 10% of all shares within a single day.

Nothing to do with jobs and unemployment seems to be contending this point.

Of course we took measures to fix the damage. The fact that we were able to do so says that overall, the damage wasn't too bad. We're not arguing what would have happened had every economist gone on sabbatical after 9/11; we're discussing what actually happened.

You know... ceramic plating in an armored vest can stop a bullet from almost killing someone. Doesn't negate the fact that the bullet almost killed them. Thank God for that vest though, huh?

Never said it didn't.

Mmhmmm... You were trying to completely downplay it.

You said it "nearly crippled" our economy; I said the economy took a hit--and in the long run, anything we can pull out of in a few years is only a little hit--and kept going. Of course it took effort to get it back on track--but it was an effort that went unnoticed by the pocketbooks of the vast majority.

I love how semantics equates to pure fact in your book. Find me the definition of an economic hit please. And while we're ruffling through that universally accepted definition that you're continually tossing around here, let's find the criteria that explicitly indicates that economic "hits" have a time-limit on the rebound.

I'm tired of this conversation; in three long posts you've not come up with any evidence for your assertion that al-Qaeda "nearly crippled" our economy. You've just reiterated the same horror stories. As I said in the beginning, they're small beans in the big picture, however devastating they were to those involved.

You're right... I haven't brought up statistical facts about the Dow Jones Industrial Average being skunked at 14% in one day, how it affected most of our trading partners in a domino effect the very next day, or how the New York Stock Exchange was closed for a week and reopened only with massive overhauls from the Federal Reserve taking drastic measures to prevent mayhem. I didn't outline how that affected the energy sector or how the inevitability of any economy to close off it's markets for a period of time is going to affect everything.

Oh, but wait... that was all attributed mostly to a dot-com bubble. In the long term anyways. We won't break down what happened immediately after the event, because that can't be played off as attributable to a dot-com bubble. We have to look two years later because that's what measures up to the universally-accepted, textbook definition of, "Came close to crippling our economy," and it's how we'll win our arguments because no one is arguing that and since no one is, how can you lose that argument?

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

If you wanted a maximum body count, there are better places to hit than the Pentagon... They went for the symbolic representations that these places held; the Pentagon was the symbol of American military might and the WTC was our economic might.

Right. Like I said, maximum damage. Not maximum body count.

But on another note...

I'm finished with other notes. This is turning into one of these things that goes around and around because one or both parties are failing to finish one thing before moving onto the next, either intentionally or just out of lack of focus.

1.) 9/11 was about weakening American influence in the Middle East...

So we do agree. Foreign affairs. Not a way of life.

2.) http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/as...ape/index.html

Okay, it is that one. Since you are apparently not claiming that 9/11 was about converting America to Islam after all, I assume we can drop this. If I'm reading you wrong and you are in fact claiming that, let me know.

Drake

[delicti]

Originally Posted by viscus

Would the federal government's response have been so inept if FEMA and several other agencies hadn't been reorganized into the Department of Homeland Security and reoriented mainly into counter-terrorism? Perhaps, perhaps not.

It probably didn't help, but FEMA has a long history of dealing poorly with this type of event:

http://media.www.thedmonline.com/med...-2131360.shtml
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...7/134914.shtml
http://www.bigpicweblog.com/exp/inde...also_criticiz/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMA

I don't think we should ignore one threat in favor of another, I was just observing that the average citizen has a lot more to fear from several other things that the government could properly address than terrorism, and it seems kind of silly how the threat of terrorism generates so much political capital (or at least it did until the Iraq occupation started going to hell sideways).

It's a fair and accurate observation.

I think the reason it created so much traction was that it's basically the only thing that's kept the Republican party alive for the last 6 years. The Repubs have lost touch with their base, and make worse and worse radical allies as attempts to win them back, which completely isolates the middle and left. If it weren't for a "successful" "War on Terror," there'd be no Republican elect ability at all. Well, that is, until the Dems take over and get their chance at showing us how incompetent they are, as well. ;-)

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Right. Like I said, maximum damage. Not maximum body count.

Well in that case, they should have just stuck with the original 10 planes - five on each coast - plot. Or the original, original idea of hitting nuclear power plants if maximum damage was on the docket.

I'm finished with other notes. This is turning into one of these things that goes around and around because one or both parties are failing to finish one thing before moving onto the next, either intentionally or just out of lack of focus.

Mmmm... that other note had to do with the underlying motivations behind al-Qaeda's ideology and reasoning involving disagreement with America's secular society and the principles of democracy. Don't worry though, I'll go ahead and reiterate that in just a moment in the form of direct sentiment from Bin Laden, as used for justification in murdering American civilians as it correlates to the 9/11 attacks.

So we do agree. Foreign affairs. Not a way of life.

Out of a paraphrased statement that outlined a short term goal, we agree. Out of longer term goals of such attacks, we continue to disagree (I'm guessing).

Okay, it is that one. Since you are apparently not claiming that 9/11 was about converting America to Islam after all, I assume we can drop this. If I'm reading you wrong and you are in fact claiming that, let me know.

What's apparent is that you're not reading whole statements. You're taking the paraphrased sections you quote me on and are running with them. 9/11 had a grander scheme behind it, as al-Qaeda's entire ideology does. That aspect of it, as shown in the article, makes it pretty clear their mentality is that Americans should ultimately convert to Islam to avert this conflict. Notice how foreign policy isn't part of the rhetoric there.

Let's also note the original statement you were trying to argue was that al-Qaeda's attacks on American soil had nothing to do with a, "Way of life," when in fact democracy was the justification given by Bin Laden for the murdering of civilians.

Those justifications were posted on the internet in 2002 under the title of, "Statement from Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, May God Protect Him, and al-Qaeda Organization."