The worst thing that happened on 9/11

[hedgehog]

We weren't attacked on 9/11, we were witness to a horrible crime. Bush cast this into the language of war and we have responded as if we were at war ever since. He turned criminals into heroic warriors and gave them more respect than they should ever have had. Terrorists don't deserve to be categorized with honorable soldiers. This wasn't Pearl Harbor, it was a two-bit murder written large. He's destroyed our military by turning it loose on something it was never meant to handle and shredded the reputations of our law enforcement agencies by demanding that suspects be tortured for information. Imagine where we'd be today if there had been a full court press by the FBI working with foreign agencies to arrest those responsible and bring them into open court for trial. We'd still have the respect of the world and maybe even a safer country.

[Rex]

1. Excellent post!

Which raises the question; WHY not let the proper law enforcement organizations do their jobs? Why treat 9/11 as an act of war and not an international crime scene?

[Vincardog]

6. Duh. Do you think if we treated it as the crime it was, we might have

indicted and convicted the people responsible?

IF we had treated 9/11/2001 as a crime we would not have launched the illegal war and occupation of Iraq right?

If we had treated 9/11/2001 as a crime would there have been any excuse to pass the Patriot Act and begin the process of stripping our civil liberties right?

[hedgehog]

8. Isn't it funny how in five years since 9/11, no one has pursued the

question of why the Justice Department was preparing the Patriot Act well before the WTC was attacked? I'm not saying this is a case of MIHOP or LIHOP. I am saying that it is strange that an administration so lackadaisical about the terrorist threat spent so much time preparing this legislation. Just who was it originally aimed at? How would George have justified it in the absence of 9/11?

[hedgehog]

7. Bush keeps asking for new laws and new courts.

I'd be happy if he'd just use the laws and courts we have. Murder, conspiracy to murder, hijacking planes, destruction of property, piracy; these are all areas that would fit nicely into an honest and open and clear prosecution of the terrorists. The US was able to assemble a case to send McVey to the death chamber and the first WTC bombers to jail. Not that I approve the death penalty, but why wasn't that good enough for the 9/11 terrorists? I think he was so focused on Saddam that war was the only answer he had. Going after Osama was merely a distraction from his intent to get Saddam.

[magellan]

29. Why do we need all these new laws and courts anyway?

The Brits have made do with what they currently have regarding the arrest and indictment of their terror suspects. They don't seem hampered in the least by using their criminal law and court system.

edited to add: good post!

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. You are, of course, totally correct.

And as I have said here before, the very fact that we went to war, and called out the "War on Terror", means that the terrorists won that day.

We totally over-reacted.

[LiberalArkie]

3. Following Bush's train of thought, wouldn't OKC have been an

act of war by the U.S. Army ? Since McVeigh was trained by the U.S. Army.

[Ediacara]

10. Well Clinton obviously should have invaded Kansas

since McVeigh lived there :eyes:

[sandnsea]

14. No

Timothy McVeigh wasn't carrying out an agenda that the US Army supported, in fact he hated the US Army. He wasn't carrying out a particular political agenda at all, which is the specific thing that differentiates that crime from the 9/11 attack.

[serryjw]

16. I don't think that is a correct statement

Timothy McVeigh most certainly had an agenda. He hated government and what happened at Waco & Ruby Ridge.

[sandnsea]

17. He didn't represent anybody

He wasn't connected to any group with an international political agenda. Everybody has a motive for what they do, that isn't the same thing as a coordinated group like the IRA or something. Timothy McVeigh is just not the same thing as Osama Bin Laden, it's ludicrous to even suggest it. Beyond ludicrous really, but I would get kicked off if I said anymore.

[serryjw]

19. Your original statement was he

didn't have a 'political agenda'..I disagreed. he wasn't a mad man bombing a building for no reason. He choose the building EXACTLY because he had a agenda, regardless of how many were part of it.

BTW, there are some who believe that TM was CIA...But I won't go there

[sandnsea]

21. No it isn't what I said at all

Go back and read what I said. Then try again.

[Sherman A1]

4. Agreed and Well Said.

[TahitiNut]

5. I'm in 100% agreement.

Both the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and the invasion and occupation of Iraq are war crimes.

[aikoaiko]

9. full court press?

The Taliban would have never given up Bin Laden. They didn't do it before 9/11 (Clinton tried) and they didn't do it after even with the threat of war (even Bush gave the Taliban a chance to turn him over). I hardly think the FBI and Scotland yard would have scared them.

[hedgehog]

12. Bin Laden's power depends on money and prestige.

We could have stopped his money supply, I don't know if we have to this day. Any country that can sell people on everything from Cool Whip to four wheel drive SUVs in California must have the talented people somewhere who could have created a campaign to show this guy as lower than whale shit.

[aikoaiko]

22. respectfully, I don't think a PR campaign would have been enough

To keep going with the metaphor though, I think you underestimate what OBL was/is selling to some poor, disenfranchised, and/or hateful muslims.

[wickerwoman]

30. They offered to give up bin Laden several times before we invaded.

but Bush ignored them and it went straight down the memory hole.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm

"Earlier this month, President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said."

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

"After a rocky start on the first day of the Frankfurt session, Mohabbat says the Taliban realized the gravity of US threats and outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles. In the end, Mohabbat says, the Taliban promised the "unconditional surrender of bin Laden" . "We all agreed," Mohabbat tells CounterPunch, "the best way was to gather Osama and all his lieutenants in one location and the US would send one or two Cruise missiles."

"Mohabbat says the Taliban were flown to Quetta in two C-130s. There they agreed to the three demands sought by the US team: 1. Immediate handover of bin Laden; 2. Extradition of foreigners in Al Qaeda who were wanted in their home countries; 3. shut-down of bin Laden's bases and training camps. Mohabbat says the Taliban agreed to all three demands."

[aikoaiko]

31. I wish we had taken them up on that last offer...

... to see if it would have happened. A much better result than the one we have now could have happened. Of course, they were talks even before 9/11 where they made offers but backed out because it would have undermined their fundie authority. While the Taliban probably realized more than ever that OBL was a murderer and putting Afghanistan in danger, he was also a bigger hero than ever to the fundie masses.

[file83]

11. I think the worst thing that happened was that it was officially announced

that we will forever live in a "New World". Things will always be "different" post 9/11, they said, and everyone agreed.

That gave so much to the 19 thugs. 19 thugs changed the course of a nation? Since when?

I remember growing up in the 80's hearing people in London saying that they wouldn't change their lives because of the IRA bombings.

But as soon as we get attacked through a flaw in airport security, suddenly we have to all give up our freedoms, pass the "Patriot Act", start fingerprinting everyone, invade sovereign nations, etc....

What those all went to show me was that America was NEVER the strong nation we claimed to be, for if 19 thugs can change the course of a 280+ million country, spending 400+ billion a year on "defense", then we have all been victims of the biggest scam in the history of human kind.

[sandnsea]

13. We were attacked

A specific extremist group with an anti-western agenda have said they attacked us, they've declared war, they are at war. Oklahoma City was a crime. 9/11 was an attack, one that followed the first WTC attack, Somalia, 2 embassies and the Cole. It is wrong and foolish to try to pretend this was anything different. While it does not require fighting them the way we fight traditional wars, it is still wrong to consider this anything but an attack to further a political agenda that seeks to completely change the cultures and geo-politcs of the world.

[hedgehog]

23. Only a sovereign nation can declare war.

These guys are more in line with pirates or mobsters. They're using the threat of violence to black mail us. The proper response is to disarm and arrest them, not feed into their own fantasies of greatness by suggesting that they are waging war on us.

[sandnsea]

24. They are waging war

The appropriate response doesn't necessarily mean military engagement, but it doesn't change the fact that a group of thousands of people have declared war. It's not like a little mob war or gang war where innocents get caught in the crossfire, it's targeted attacks on western governments and cultures. The reason they got away with 9/11 is because they weren't taken seriously. It's possible to marginalize their influence while fully defending against the threat. Taking them seriously does not mean one lops along behind George Bush, shooting mindlessly at targets, real or imagined. It also doesn't mean you just go back to shopping and reality tv either.

[hedgehog]

25. If you call something a nail, the only tool you use is a hammer.

By calling Al-Queda's attacks war, we got into the mind set that the appropiate response was to throw our military at them. Sort of like taking a flame thrower after the fleas that get on my dog. It'll get rid of the fleas on the dog,but the dog won't be happy and it does nothing for the fleas that are on my cat. Put the proper flea medicine on both animals and everyone is happeir except the fleas.

[sandnsea]

26. Gosh, not if you're a carpenter

You might use a nail gun, nail puller, or even different kinds of nails - or even screws or staples, if you aren't a third grader with no other knowledge of construction.

[Monkeyman]

15. I will never forgets Rove's words before the Attack

Mr President we need a War to raise your numbers

[Jed Dilligan]

18. Because

If competent (i.e. foreign) intelligence agencies were to start investigating the crime, they might find out who actually did it.

[Ksec]

20. bush used it for political gain.

Good post.

[OneBlueSky]

27. excellent post . . . this would make a superb LTTE . . .

mind if I (and maybe others) use it? . . . thanks . . .

[Erika]

28. Remember the Oklahoma Federal Building

Says it all. John Kerry was 100% right in saying terrorists acts should be a law enforcement issue.