9/11

[Hovercar Madness]

President assassinations have happened throughout history, sometimes with much greater consequences. I'm not merely speaking of the direct political consequences of the 9/11 attack; I'm saying that, with it, the world has taken another direction; our perception shifted; the whole nature of politics readjusted.

Really?

You are aware that Europe was long since familiar with the woes of terrorism?

Islamism wasn't a new threat by far either, not since the fall of Byzantium.

Hell, even an attack on American soil is not unprecedented.

No, I assure you, the world has not taken a new direction. Everything is still going exactly the same way it used to be except that the middle east is now fucked up even more than it used to be and the always low-threat of terrorism has become a tiny bit bigger.

I don't understand how the fact that large terrorist attacks aren't without precedent means 9/11 isn't a major historic event. Unlike these other attacks 9/11 was the direct cause of one war (incidently the same reason why Pearl Harbor is also a major historic event), the indirect cause of a second war and possibly of (sort of) world war 3. Whether three thousand people dieing is worth endless warfare is a different question, but irrelevant to whether 9/11 is significant or not.

For Kennedy's assassination to have been more significant Oswald would have had to been labeled an agent of Castro, sparking the invasion of Cuba and a subsequent nuclear holocaust methinks.

(Though Draugen's mystical twist is also fun)

 

[keyser Soeze]

we shall never forget

Yes we will.

I'm not saying this out of spite, disinterest or annoyance, 9/11 as a historic event is simply too insignificant to be remembered by most of the world for long, and the US has never been too good at long attention spans, so the chance of them remembering forever is pretty small.

That will depend on a lot of things. It is turning into Holocaust 2, already, so If this "War on Terror" prolongates over the years, you, or anyone with a television, won't be able to forget it so soon.

I think the most important factor to keep this subject alive is the Bush administration. They have spent a ridiculous amount of time on "The War on Terror" after 9/11. To justify this they needed to make the most of it, so to speak.
Otherwise some of the people would wake up and understand whats happening, and this of course is unthinkable.

Id say that as soon Bush leaves the white house this moment in history will slowly lose its significance.

It also depends on who replaces him.
But i really cant see that someone with the same determination (fanaticism) will replace him.

Just look at the death toll of American Soldiers in Iraq is today: 2669 killed and 19910 wounded.
( http://icasualties.org/oif/ )

This will work out as long as the media don't share any light on those numbers, but that wont hold up forever.

So... people is getting tired of fighting for something they don't understand and that will make it impossible/very hard for some one to get elected using the same line as Bush do today.

 

[Brother None]

That will depend on a lot of things. It is turning into Holocaust 2, already, so If this "War on Terror" prolongates over the years, you, or anyone with a television, won't be able to forget it so soon.

Ahahahaaha! Calling these deaths a second holocaust is almost as hilarious as referring to 9/11 as a turning point.

Let's keep our facts straight:
1. Iraq is a relatively clean war.
2. Iraq slipping into civil war will be pretty dang awful, but it won't be worst than many other civil wars we've seen over the past half-century that people constantly fail to mention.
3. 9/11 is hardly a significant historic event
4. The results of 9/11 are slightly significant, but not significant enough to be long-remembered.

I don't think you got my point. It isn't about "terrorism", or "Islam"; it is about the implication of the event in historical perception, misusing the term a little, here, to cover a reality that cannot be integrated into "history" as we see it.

Well, thank you, Mr Russell, got any more meaningless conflations in your pocket or did that one empty the barrel?

Everything that constitutes history results from a way of looking at things, a "collective subconscious" as some call it, or as I prefer to call it, a soul, that is the product of an age - the age, here, as unit of space-time. That soul(the nervous system of civilization) is constantly being transformed in ways which we, most times, cannot detect. Politics is an art of subtlety, and therefore regists many of those small changes.

Meaningless drivel, I'm sorry to say.

And no, history in no way is constituted by the collective subconsciousness at the *time* of the historical event and quite completely by the subconsciousness both following it and, in case of interpretation, looking back at it. Your statement is meaningless.

The observer with a minimum of intellectual acuity will perceive that political discourse and political relations have adjusted themselves, recently.

That's funny because you just said one sentence before that politics "regists" (sic) the soul which is quote-unquote constantly being transformed. Hence the observation that it has adjusted itself recently would be an observation that everything is as it always is.

Good observation!

The more astute he is, the deeper he will be able to probe into the relations of power going on today.

It's good that you self-knowledge reaches deep enough to realise you are not astute at all.

I'd risk saying that 9/11 marks an epoch in contemporaneus history, not only because of its political consequences, but mainly because it was unreal, in all its aspects, direct, indirect or all the others. Whether I'm right or wrong, only the perspective of those in the future will be able to tell.

Contemporaneus is not a word. If you don't know how to spell a word, don't use its expensive version, just say "contemporary", it makes you look a bit less ludicrous and slightly less like you're reaching for straws.

Again, the assertion that it was "unreal" just because this is your personal experience while viewing it and despite the fact that you have no personal basis of comparison is joke-worthy, but little more. You seem to think that because you felt personally impressed all of history should bend around this event. I'm sorry, but...no?

And "time will tell" is a straw man argument. I don't like straw men.

I don't understand how the fact that large terrorist attacks aren't without precedent means 9/11 isn't a major historic event.

That's not what I said, though I think 9/11 isn't a major historic event for other reasons, I said it is ludicrous to assume that our entire paradigm would shift halfway around the globe because of 9/11 when in essence 9/11 isn't unique or new.

Unlike these other attacks 9/11 was the direct cause of one war (incidently the same reason why Pearl Harbor is also a major historic event)

Unlike what other attacks? You do realise terrorism has been the cause of wars and civil wars of length and scale yet to be reached by the US? Chechnya jumps to mind. Are you saying Chechen terrorist attacks have not been the direct cause of invasions into Chechen areas?

For Kennedy's assassination to have been more significant Oswald would have had to been labeled an agent of Castro, sparking the invasion of Cuba and a subsequent nuclear holocaust methinks.

I wasn't referring to significance there, but rather the way people observed it. Draugen went all pseudo-intellectual pothead on me saying he could "totally feel the vibes coming from that attack, mang, it was unreal", to which I simply pointed out that he had no basis of comparison, unlike the guy from my example who did and found one no more unreal than the other.

 

[John Uskglass]

3. 9/11 is hardly a significant historic event

I don't think you have a right to say that yet. It's only been five years. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people would disagree with the idea that "the world had changed" five years after the founding of Solidarność, that does not change the fact that it had.

 

[Malky]

I gotta agree with John on that one.

After you rip away all of the lies and hype, 9/11 has already changed the world on a grand scale, and set in motion a wave of events that is far from over.

 

[Brother None]

I don't think you have a right to say that yet. It's only been five years. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people would disagree with the idea that "the world had changed" five years after the founding of Solidarność, that does not change the fact that it had.

No, I can't state it, definitely. Your example is funny though because by logic that five years after the founding of Solidarnosc nobody said the world had changed, while five years after 9/11 everyone is saying it. Does your logic carry in opposites too, in other words, by your logic, "hasn't it"?

That said, while the future remains an unknown and "I can't say" whether or not this impacted history in a *major* way, why exactly is it then justified to state the opposite as fact just because it feels instinctively right?

There is nothing to actually back the statement that the world *has* changed "in a major way" since 9/11. There's plenty to disprove it, namely the lack of any major changes yet seen or foreseeable. Neither the US nor Europe have been significantly impacted, Asia, Africa and South America are completely unaffected, the only one affected on the long term is the Middle East, which is more likely than anything else just a speeding up of a progress long since started.

'k?

 

[Stag]

I've not read most of the above comments, but I'd like to say that 9/11 was a day of true tragedy, and those lost shall always be remembered.

Also, fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Unlike what other attacks? You do realise terrorism has been the cause of wars and civil wars of length and scale yet to be reached by the US? Chechnya jumps to mind. Are you saying Chechen terrorist attacks have not been the direct cause of invasions into Chechen areas?

Ofcourse the appartment block bombings sparked the russian invasion which make them an important regional if not global event. But comparing miniscule seperatist province to Afghanistan/Iraq/omgww3 should tip the global importance meter to the latter. Besides, historical significance is in the eyes of the beholder, which is to say the west.

Neither the US nor Europe have been significantly impacted

Rising islamophobia could probably in part be attributed to 9/11 I guess. Anyway, if causing two wars isn't enough to be labeled a world changing event, what is?

 

[Brother None]

Ofcourse the appartment block bombings sparked the russian invasion which make them an important regional if not global event. But comparing miniscule seperatist province to Afghanistan/Iraq/omgww3 should tip the global importance meter to the latter. Besides, historical significance is in the eyes of the beholder, which is to say the west.

You were saying the fact that these attacks caused a war in the first place was unique, I disproved as much, I wasn't claiming any further basis for comparison. Stop straw manning.

Rising islamophobia could probably in part be attributed to 9/11 I guess.

It's more attributable to human nature.

Anyway, if causing two wars isn't enough to be labeled a world changing event, what is?

"Causing" "two" "wars"?

1. Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11. The relation between Iraq and 9/11 is lateral and linked together by the US gov, that'll spark some historical controversy.
2. Neither of them were really wars, they were invasions followed by a wild riding attempt to keep the lid on. Difference? No full-scale war, no monstrous numbers of casualties. Comparable to Vietnam/Korea? Not in the least.

 

[Draugen]

Suffer:

I see you're trying to drag me into a pointless tit-for-tat "debate" of attrition. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sink to that level and spend my time responding to gratuitous hostilities and purposeful misinterpretations of my points, as I find that attitude incomprehensible since we're total strangers to eachother and there are no reasons for animosity. This is the kind of thing I only see in the Internet, so I assume it most be some kind of "Internet behavior", in which I have no intention to indulge in, as I have no reason to behave differently here than I do in real life.

Just another note: despite English not being my first language, I think I can speak it better than some of the members I've found through occasional lurking. None of them were reprehended except in some severe cases, so I assume your cynicism is only aimed at provoking me. Why do you do this?

 

[Hovercar Madness]

You were saying the fact that these attacks caused a war in the first place was unique, I disproved as much, I wasn't claiming any further basis for comparison. Stop straw manning.

Historical unicity tends to wither away after thousands of years of political history, unless you can name a recent unique historical event (which I've been trying to get out of you, not straw-manning).

"Causing" "two" "wars"?

1. Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11. The relation between Iraq and 9/11 is lateral and linked together by the US gov, that'll spark some historical controversy.
2. Neither of them were really wars, they were invasions followed by a wild riding attempt to keep the lid on. Difference? No full-scale war, no monstrous numbers of casualties. Comparable to Vietnam/Korea? Not in the least.

1.The Iraq war was only possible in the post-9/11 political climate. Americans weren't afraid of Saddams WMD's because he'd personally get on a boat and nuke Washington, but because he might play them on to the big bad tewwowists.
Same case with any possible future escalation of the Iranian crisis.
2. Korea/Vietnam we can look back on in retrospect Iraq and Afghanistan are still unraveling as we speak. I mean type.

 

[Brother None]

I see you're trying to drag me into a pointless tit-for-tat "debate" of attrition. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sink to that level and spend my time responding to gratuitous hostilities and purposeful misinterpretations of my points, as I find that attitude incomprehensible since we're total strangers to eachother and there are no reasons for animosity. This is the kind of thing I only see in the Internet, so I assume it most be some kind of "Internet behavior", in which I have no intention to indulge in, as I have no reason to behave differently here than I do in real life.

Ok, I accept your surrender. If you can't find ways to counter-argue, just say so, though, no need to write a book.

Also, you started trolling. Hiding your trolls behind a thin veneer of intellectualism is no excuse when you're basically calling the other side "too stupid to see my point". But thanks for giving a nice row of straw men throughout each and every one of your posts.

Just another note: despite English not being my first language, I think I can speak it better than some of the members I've found through occasional lurking. None of them were reprehended except in some severe cases, so I assume your cynicism is only aimed at provoking me. Why do you do this?

Because you attempt to use fancy English to pretend to be of superior intellect, which makes your spelling mistakes unintentionally hilarious. When you say "contemporaneous" instead of "contemporary", which is a completely useless synonym replacement, a spelling mistake is like comedy gold.

Historical unicity tends to wither away after thousands of years of political history, unless you can name a recent unique historical event (which I've been trying to get out of you, not straw-manning).

The first terrorist attack was unique.

That said, I never claimed 9/11s historical irrelevance stems from the fact that it is not a unique event, I did claim part of its irrelevance comes from the fact that it isn't even unique in recent history. Which is different from not being unique when you look at all of human history.

The Iraq war was only possible in the post-9/11 political climate. Americans weren't afraid of Saddams WMD's because he'd personally get on a boat and nuke Washington, but because he might play them on to the big bad tewwowists.

True and not true. Washington was planning on attack Iraq anyway, what kind of excuse they would come up with or how they'd fool the general American audience who, let's be honest here, are pretty easy to scare into subservience anyway, doesn't really change that fact.

Nor does your statement make 9/11 the *direct* cause, which you seemed to claim before.

Korea/Vietnam we can look back on in retrospect Iraq and Afghanistan are still unraveling as we speak. I mean type.

Again, saying "this or that might happen" is a strawman. As it stands now and as it is *likely* to develop, Iraq/Afghanistan are not comparable in historical significance to Korea/Vietnam.

 

[Morbus]

Exuse me if i'm offending someone, but, as an european, I have to ask: are there many people there in USA that don't believe crap about this whole think about Osama? I mean... Well... Are there?

Then again, sorry if i'm offending someone, i know how americans can be... Really, i respect the victims, and the families, and I respect people's opinions about facts, just like i expect others to respect mine... I just don't believe (and never believed) what US government say about this. For me, they are hidding something... Are there many americans that think this way?

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Nor does your statement make 9/11 the *direct* cause, which you seemed to claim before.

Seemed, seemed but didn't:

direct cause of one war (incidently the same reason why Pearl Harbor is also a major historic event), the indirect cause of a second war and possibly of (sort of) world war 3

Anyway,

Again, saying "this or that might happen" is a strawman. As it stands now and as it is *likely* to develop, Iraq/Afghanistan are not comparable in historical significance to Korea/Vietnam.

Wait a second, saying an unknown outcome means we can not yet determine the significance as compared to Korea/Vietnam is a strawman, while saying it is less significant isn't? As it stands, any outcome is as likely as the other (at least to the layman), or are you even saying that Iraq falling apart in three states wouldn't make it as significant as say, Korea.

Also, something on the Korea/Vietnam comparison as a measure of significance: Al Qaida's attack on the twin towers as a (in)direct cause of Iraq/Afghanistan was in itself independent from both of the governments against which these wars are being fought. Even in between all the spin neither the Taliban (attacked for harboring Bin Laden) or Saddam (attacked to prevent a possible future 9/11) was ever blamed for 9/11. Which, at least, attributes to its uniqueness. That is to say, an international terrorist organization leading to wars between nations. Neither Korea/Vietnam, nor Chechnia, nor even the first world war (at least I think the black hand was a Serbian nationalist club) falls in this category.

 

[Draugen]

Ok, I accept your surrender. If you can't find ways to counter-argue, just say so, though, no need to write a book.

Also, you started trolling. Hiding your trolls behind a thin veneer of intellectualism is no excuse when you're basically calling the other side "too stupid to see my point". But thanks for giving a nice row of straw men throughout each and every one of your posts.

You see, there's nothing worthy arguing or counter-arguing about. That became clear from the beginning. I don't think there's anything to surrender, either.

My post was perhaps a little too unclear for others to understand my point, and for that I apologise. I only voiced my uncomprehension towards your gratuituous hostility and cynicism, but I see that was useless, as will continue to be this conversation as it progresses further. As far as I'm concerned, it will end with this post.

Because you attempt to use fancy English to pretend to be of superior intellect, which makes your spelling mistakes unintentionally hilarious. When you say "contemporaneous" instead of "contemporary", which is a completely useless synonym replacement, a spelling mistake is like comedy gold.

My spelling mistakes were due to incorrect translations from the direct equivalents in my language. If I said "contemporaneous", that was because that form is closer(an extra vowel, to be exact) to its direct equivalent in my language, and I failed to notice I was making a spelling mistake in English. The same with "regists".

 

[xdarkyrex]

And "time will tell" is a straw man argument. I don't like straw men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

incorrect. i hate how people on this board throw around the term ":straw man argument" without even knowing wtf it really even is.

 

[Tagaziel]

"Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted."

I believe it is used in this context, and is understood. You're surprisingly loud for a man with a head up his as.

 

[Sander]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

incorrect. i hate how people on this board throw around the term ":straw man argument" without even knowing wtf it really even is.

No, *you* don't know what it is. 'Time will tell' is a straw man because it offers a meaningless answer that cannot be refuted while attempting to draw attention away from the actual argument at hand.

Draugen:

You see, there's nothing worthy arguing or counter-arguing about.

Oh really? Because a few posts ago you seemed to be more than wiling to argue with Suffer.
The 'this is meaningless' argument is one often used by people who don't have anything to say to an opponent's arguments.
See, someone who uses logic to reach conclusions and not to defend his already assumed positions would admit that he was wrong when proven wrong (which is when he can't argue against an opponents' valid arguments), most people, though, just come up with 'this is useless' or 'you're just not listening' or descend into logical fallacies and insults.

That became clear from the beginning.

No it didn't. Especially not because you actually continued arguing from the beginning. You're just trying to back out now that you've got nothing to say anymore.

I don't think there's anything to surrender, either. [/qutoe]
Yes there is. This was an argument about whether or not the 9/11 attacks would be a historically significant event. Your position was (and still is, apparently)

My post was perhaps a little too unclear for others to understand my point, and for that I apologise. I only voiced my uncomprehension towards your gratuituous hostility and cynicism, but I see that was useless, as will continue to be this conversation as it progresses further. As far as I'm concerned, it will end with this post.

No, your posts were quite easy to understand. Very long-winded and convoluted, though.

All that dribble about a collective subconsciousness essentially said one thing: history changes, and 9/11 changed it. It did not state, however, that it changed it significantly and you tried to divert attention away from that with long bits of texts that could've been said much more concisely. The only point relevant to the significance of the event was that politics had changed.

 

[Pajari]

despite English not being my first language, I think I can speak it better than some of the members I've found through occasional lurking.

I'll confine my responses to you and this thread in general to this: that lurking of yours should be near-constant and should leave you no time for posting.

This thread was a fantastic idea. Sander, you should have closed it on page 2 instead of giving out a warning, because nobody ever listens to that stuff around here.

 

[John Uskglass]

No, I can't state it, definitely. Your example is funny though because by logic that five years after the founding of Solidarnosc nobody said the world had changed, while five years after 9/11 everyone is saying it. Does your logic carry in opposites too, in other words, by your logic, "hasn't it"?

It's entirely possible that 9/11 was a pawn of trends long set in motion, rather then a great catalyst of history. Or however you want to say that. But it's also likely that it is, as many believe it to be, a big event that has changed the world. Like it or not, America is once again an "Imperial" power, Islamofascism has become stronger in most areas (which was probably going to happen either way without some kind of massive collapse of most of the regimes in the ME in favor of democratic or at least not-shitty ones), and thanks to GWB the United States 'looks' like it has used up almost all of it's good will and is spending too much to defend an overstretched military. China has gained, Europe is (predictably) impotent, and Russia's backtracked to the good old NEP days.

Most of this probably would have happened without 9/11. Maybe. I don't know. It's all idle speculation.

That said, while the future remains an unknown and "I can't say" whether or not this impacted history in a *major* way, why exactly is it then justified to state the opposite as fact just because it feels instinctively right?

I'm not arguing either way. It could go down as a terrible day in American history and a catalyst for the poping of the first tech bobble. Or it could be the most important event in history since the fall of the Berlin wall. I have no idea. Neither do you.