Is this a discussion on the practticalities of skyscraper demolition, the correct response to massive terrorist acts, or whether the USA was a victim of appalling internal corrupt mischief?

If we assume that

a) the attack on the Twin Towers was a terrorist act by enemies of the state

the collapse of the towers was caused by that attack

c) the US goverrnmanet believed that the attack was instigated by (and to b ehonest, the American war, wherever it may be, is such a 'given' that I can'r remember whether 9'11 came from Iraq or Afghanistan - round it up, call it ten shillings, say it came from both,,..

Was their response unjustified? Was their response to the sinking of the Lusitania in 1917 unjustified?

SC

The thread is about whether or not the reaction to the attacks on 9/11 was too much. Personally, I don't believe there is such a thing as "too much" or "overreact" when something like 9/11 happens. The more over the top the reaction is, the less likely someone will try the same sh*t. In 1941 Japan wanted to get the USA out of the Pacific and the result of their sneak attack was American bases all across the Pacific and their in homeland in addition to over 1 million Japanese killed. It took 60 years before someone was stupid enough to try that again. Al Qaeda wanted to get the USA out of muslim lands. The result is dozens of bases and hundreds of thousands of military personnel spread from Northern Africa to Paksitan in addition to over 100,000 musilms killed (most by other Muslims as it turns out). I hope it is at least another 60 years before someone again tests the American resolve for "payback". Btw - we aren't alone in that. There are a few other countries out there who also payback in full and then some.

Side note: At least the Lusitania was actually sunk. The whole Gulf of Tonkin deal was just made up.

.

I don't really think that New York and Hawaii are comparable. The attack on the US' naval base in Hawaii was an attempt to disable their military ability in the Pacific, and hence allow Japanese expansion. That seems to me a legitimate military objective.

The attack on tall buildings in New York was, as I understand, a terrorist attack, with the intent of limiting US activity based on fear of attacks that might be vented upon the US public.

I am less worried by the attacks on tall buildings in New York than by the inability of the US to distinguish civil and military targets

SC

Is this a discussion on the practticalities of skyscraper demolition, the correct response to massive terrorist acts, or whether the USA was a victim of appalling internal corrupt mischief?

If we assume that

a) the attack on the Twin Towers was a terrorist act by enemies of the state

the collapse of the towers was caused by that attack

c) the US goverrnmanet believed that the attack was instigated by (and to b ehonest, the American war, wherever it may be, is such a 'given' that I can'r remember whether 9'11 came from Iraq or Afghanistan - round it up, call it ten shillings, say it came from both,,..

Was their response unjustified? Was their response to the sinking of the Lusitania in 1917 unjustified?

SC

The thread is about whether or not the reaction to the attacks on 9/11 was too much. Personally, I don't believe there is such a thing as "too much" or "overreact" when something like 9/11 happens. The more over the top the reaction is, the less likely someone will try the same sh*t. In 1941 Japan wanted to get the USA out of the Pacific and the result of their sneak attack was American bases all across the Pacific and their in homeland in addition to over 1 million Japanese killed. It took 60 years before someone was stupid enough to try that again. Al Qaeda wanted to get the USA out of muslim lands. The result is dozens of bases and hundreds of thousands of military personnel spread from Northern Africa to Paksitan in addition to over 100,000 musilms killed (most by other Muslims as it turns out). I hope it is at least another 60 years before someone again tests the American resolve for "payback". Btw - we aren't alone in that. There are a few other countries out there who also payback in full and then some.

Side note: At least the Lusitania was actually sunk. The whole Gulf of Tonkin deal was just made up.

.

I don't really think that New York and Hawaii are comparable. The attack on the US' naval base in Hawaii was an attempt to disable their military ability in the Pacific, and hence allow Japanese expansion. That seems to me a legitimate military objective.

The attack on tall buildings in New York was, as I understand, a terrorist attack, with the intent of limiting US activity based on fear of attacks that might be vented upon the US public.

I am less worried by the attacks on tall buildings in New York than by the inability of the US to distinguish civil and military targets

SC

So you believe an attack at 0700 on a December Sunday morning while your Ambassador has recently been discussing peace initiatives in Washington is acceptable because you are hitting a military target?

Both of them were sneak attacks on the US when they believed the US would not retaliate. They were wrong.

Japan should have reconsidered their military objectives. Perhaps Osama should have reconsidered also.

Personally, I don't believe there is such a thing as "too much" or "overreact" when something like 9/11 happens.

Wait..... Think about what you just said.

Personally, I don't believe there is such a thing as "too much" or "overreact" when something like 9/11 happens.

Wait..... Think about what you just said.

So what might the "correct" action be? Equal casualties? Equal non-human value destroyed? Something else?

If/when you react, you do so with maximum force.

Clinton tried mailing some Cruise missiles out into the desert after various terrorist incidents and all it got us was 9/11 and more terror attacks. One reason Bin Laden felt he could attack the World Trade Center was he thought there would be no, or little, retaliation. That had been the case since the end of Gulf War I and he presumed it would continue under Bush.

He was wrong.

Personally, I don't believe there is such a thing as "too much" or "overreact" when something like 9/11 happens.

Wait..... Think about what you just said.

So what might the "correct" action be? Equal casualties? Equal non-human value destroyed? Something else?

Well that is another subject & no equal casualties of course is not possible. Definitely the culprits needed to be brought to justice.

Also as I have often said without looking at the reason it does not matter how much we attack as it will become a never ending circle.

But....back to your comment above that there is no such thing as an over reaction to 9-11.

The reason I asked is basically to ask you the same question you just did of me.

I said wait & think because anytime a country...ours in this case is about to embark on a war...war on terror or what ever.

There has to be a premise . If not it will surely lead to financial & resource ruin. Much as this over reaction is doing now.

So what is the premise of this reaction? We go after those responsible for 9/11? Of course

But what is to be considered a success? It is obvious after a decade that this cannot go on forever financially or resource wise.

Also the degree of success so far... has it increased/decreased this past decade or increased/decreased the original threat?

Degrees of success....How will we know when we have won?

There is no central government to surrender to us.

What is our goal? Stamp out terrorism?

We will not stop till there is no more?

If so are we able/willing to fight forever?

Both in financial & human lives cost?

These are things I wonder & at times wonder if our

government has.

Good comments, Flying.

When a country, in this case USA, reacts, it has to go direct for the target. If that means lying low for a while, and then reacting, so be it. The target, then, was Osama. US should have found out where he was, with all the underground means at their disposal, and then gone for him. Landing troops in Afghanistan, and antagonising everyone for hundreds of miles around (except that creep Karzai and his satellites) was, I believe, counter-productive. Among other things, it seems to have created a situation in Pakistan where nobody can feel safe (unless, poor things, they're flooded out).

Good comments, Flying.

When a country, in this case USA, reacts, it has to go direct for the target. If that means lying low for a while, and then reacting, so be it. The target, then, was Osama. US should have found out where he was, with all the underground means at their disposal, and then gone for him.

We had no "underground means". In the 1990's I believe it was fixed so that the CIA couldn't use human intelligence (spies) unless they were nice people with clean records. Someone here can provide more detail I'm sure.

Landing troops in Afghanistan, and antagonising everyone for hundreds of miles around (except that creep Karzai and his satellites) was, I believe, counter-productive. Among other things, it seems to have created a situation in Pakistan where nobody can feel safe (unless, poor things, they're flooded out).

Karzai wasn't even on the radar back then. Our "chosen" man was betrayed and killed crossing the border into Afghanistan from Pakistan.

Pakistan was never safe. A US Embassy van was shot up on the way to work in the morning and maybe 5 people killed back in 95-96 - long before 9/11,

I said wait & think because anytime a country...ours in this case is about to embark on a war...war on terror or what ever.

There has to be a premise . If not it will surely lead to financial & resource ruin. Much as this over reaction is doing now.

from the OP link:

... these exertions [the War on Terror] have

bankrupted the country and led to our current mood of despair and

decline.

Rubbish. The total cost of “the two wars” is $1.3 trillion. That’s

less than 1/11th of the national debt, less than one year of Obama deficit spending.

Yes, we are approaching bankruptcy. But this has as much to do with the war on terror

as do sunspots. Looming insolvency comes not from our shrinking defense budget

but from the explosion of entitlements. They devour nearly half the federal

budget.

read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-911-overreaction-nonsense/2011/09/08/gIQAc727CK_story.html

So what is the premise of this reaction? We go after those responsible for 9/11? Of course

But what is to be considered a success? It is obvious after a decade that this cannot go on forever financially or resource wise.

Also the degree of success so far... has it increased/decreased this past decade or increased/decreased the original threat?

Degrees of success....How will we know when we have won?

There is no central government to surrender to us.

What is our goal? Stamp out terrorism?

We will not stop till there is no more?

If so are we able/willing to fight forever?

Both in financial & human lives cost?

These are things I wonder & at times wonder if our

government has.

The "war" against terrorism is going to be an on-going operation with successes and failures. It's much more like the Cold War which was fought around the world on different levels between different ideologies for nearly 50 years. No one expected it to end when it did. Let's hope that the "Arab Spring" is another big loss for Islamic fundamentalism. The main message I would hope the "Arab Street" receives is that peaceful demonstrations against their governments has brought about more change (and less death) in a few months than Islamic fundamentalism has in decades. Even with the war in Libya and gov't killings in Syria.

The "war" against terrorism is going to be an on-going operation with successes and failures. It's much more like the Cold War which was fought around the world on different levels between different ideologies for nearly 50 years. No one expected it to end when it did. Let's hope that the "Arab Spring" is another big loss for Islamic fundamentalism. The main message I would hope the "Arab Street" receives is that peaceful demonstrations against their governments has brought about more change (and less death) in a few months than Islamic fundamentalism has in decades. Even with the war in Libya and gov't killings in Syria.

But there is a big difference between the cold war & this.

I would not say a situation termed a war like the cold war.. where military,political tension or economic competition equates to what we have here. The cold war never resulted in any military engagement.

Just the fact that the reaction has already caused twice as many American lives as the original 9/11 event that started it is one thing.

Take into account the lives of innocent bystanders/collateral damages & that is another.

Another thing, economically it is dubious to consider the number the OP article calls a total spent. It does not take into consideration many many support systems that are not counted in the wars total costs.

Yes I agree entitlement programs are equally or more responsible for the economic demise as well as other things like sheer size of government. But it is not just any of them singularly it is all of them collectively. Since this topic is the reaction to 9/11 I will focus on it for now.

In many ways what IsanBirder said would have been a better reaction. As for the CIA not having underground capabilities or needing to use clean people....We need only look at recent events in Pakistan with Raymond Davis to know it is as it always has been with the CIA.

They are a covert group that does what it does period.

At the end of the day the main questions remain unanswered. Where is it going ...what will the result be...At what costs both in costs/resources & innocent human lives on both sides. Is this making America safer of increasing /risk/hatred directed towards Americans? Does it decrease the terrorist population or ultimately increase it?

Sadly I do have one last thought on the matter & that is the fear that in times of great economic turmoil/depression there is the risk of using military as a form of employment & economic stimulus for the few who gain from it.

If we need to increase defense from terrorism I do not think this is the way to go about it. There were things to be learned from 9/11.

I am not sure we learned or put resources where they would best serve the defense of America.

The "war" against terrorism is going to be an on-going operation with successes and failures. It's much more like the Cold War which was fought around the world on different levels between different ideologies for nearly 50 years. No one expected it to end when it did. Let's hope that the "Arab Spring" is another big loss for Islamic fundamentalism. The main message I would hope the "Arab Street" receives is that peaceful demonstrations against their governments has brought about more change (and less death) in a few months than Islamic fundamentalism has in decades. Even with the war in Libya and gov't killings in Syria.

But there is a big difference between the cold war & this.

I would not say a situation termed a war like the cold war.. where military,political tension or economic competition equates to what we have here. The cold war never resulted in any military engagement.

Just the fact that the reaction has already caused twice as many American lives as the original 9/11 event that started it is one thing.

Take into account the lives of innocent bystanders/collateral damages & that is another.

Another thing, economically it is dubious to consider the number the OP article calls a total spent. It does not take into consideration many many support systems that are not counted in the wars total costs.

Yes I agree entitlement programs are equally or more responsible for the economic demise as well as other things like sheer size of government. But it is not just any of them singularly it is all of them collectively. Since this topic is the reaction to 9/11 I will focus on it for now.

In many ways what IsanBirder said would have been a better reaction. As for the CIA not having underground capabilities or needing to use clean people....We need only look at recent events in Pakistan with Raymond Davis to know it is as it always has been with the CIA.

They are a covert group that does what it does period.

At the end of the day the main questions remain unanswered. Where is it going ...what will the result be...At what costs both in costs/resources & innocent human lives on both sides. Is this making America safer of increasing /risk/hatred directed towards Americans? Does it decrease the terrorist population or ultimately increase it?

Sadly I do have one last thought on the matter & that is the fear that in times of great economic turmoil/depression there is the risk of using military as a form of employment & economic stimulus for the few who gain from it.

If we need to increase defense from terrorism I do not think this is the way to go about it. There were things to be learned from 9/11.

I am not sure we learned or put resources where they would best serve the defense of America.

Another significant difference between the cold war and the war on terror is that the cold war was a foreign policy war aimed at maintaining and expanding markets and investment opportunities overseas; the "war on terror" is aimed at American voters and the American economy, and military action overseas is merely a side show.

Alternatively, I read an interesting book suggesting that the "war on terror" is simply an excuse to put the boot in to the Muslim world to stop them achieving any sort of cohesion and international military influence.

SC

But there is a big difference between the cold war & this.

I would not say a situation termed a war like the cold war.. where military,political tension or economic competition equates to what we have here. The cold war never resulted in any military engagement.

Just the fact that the reaction has already caused twice as many American lives as the original 9/11 event that started it is one thing.

Take into account the lives of innocent bystanders/collateral damages & that is another.

The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Afghanistan War and several other minor wars in various 3rd World countries.

Pearl Harbour resulted in something like 2,000 US deaths and WWII caused about 300,000. I'm not googling the numbers but the point is still made that many times more died in the war that resulted from the initial attack.

Another thing, economically it is dubious to consider the number the OP article calls a total spent. It does not take into consideration many many support systems that are not counted in the wars total costs.

Yes I agree entitlement programs are equally or more responsible for the economic demise as well as other things like sheer size of government. But it is not just any of them singularly it is all of them collectively. Since this topic is the reaction to 9/11 I will focus on it for now.

We can focus on 9/11 as long as no one says in this thread anymore that the recent wars are bankrupting the country. Otherwise I'll just repeat the bit about entitlements, etc.

In many ways what IsanBirder said would have been a better reaction. As for the CIA not having underground capabilities or needing to use clean people....We need only look at recent events in Pakistan with Raymond Davis to know it is as it always has been with the CIA.

They are a covert group that does what it does period.

Raymond Davis was almost a decade AFTER 9/11. We didn't have the "un-clean" covert or "underground" contacts right after 9/11 which is when IsanBirder in his post said we should have used them.

At the end of the day the main questions remain unanswered. Where is it going ...what will the result be...At what costs both in costs/resources & innocent human lives on both sides. Is this making America safer of increasing /risk/hatred directed towards Americans? Does it decrease the terrorist population or ultimately increase it?

Sadly I do have one last thought on the matter & that is the fear that in times of great economic turmoil/depression there is the risk of using military as a form of employment & economic stimulus for the few who gain from it.

If we need to increase defense from terrorism I do not think this is the way to go about it. There were things to be learned from 9/11.

I am not sure we learned or put resources where they would best serve the defense of America.

This isn't a new car or college education. We don't have the luxury of asking what the total cost will be before buying it or how long it will take to complete.

Before 9/11, before Abu Ghraib, before Gitmo, before alleged abuses of the Koran, before Danish cartoons - these people hated us enough to hijack 4 planes on Sept 11, 2001 and commit horrible atrocities. It's almost ridiculous from that perspective to think that our reaction to 9/11 has made them more angry.

Much, much more than just a "few" gain from using the military as a form of employment & economic stimulus.It may not be the ideal way to stimulate the economy but we've been doing it since WWII.

Raymond Davis was almost a decade AFTER 9/11. We didn't have the "un-clean" covert or "underground" contacts right after 9/11 which is when IsanBirder in his post said we should have used them.

This isn't a new car or college education. We don't have the luxury of asking what the total cost will be before buying it or how long it will take to complete.

I took what Isanbirder said to mean....Through intelligence gathering they could have used basically a small group/hit men to accomplish the task. Rather than the overreaction & its accompanying collateral damages.

The car & college analogy is ok but even with the car & college leaving costs aside ....your premise for obtaining them was laid out beforehand.

I understand you do not think 9-11 follow up is an over-reaction though & that was your topic.

I do think it is an over-reaction given what we know & where we are today after a decade of it.

Hopefully some others will give you their views too.

Thanks

I took what Isanbirder said to mean....Through intelligence gathering they could have used basically a small group/hit men to accomplish the task. Rather than the overreaction & its accompanying collateral damages.

Thanks, Flying; yes, I did.

I think the overreaction was at least partly caused by the American assumption that Americans are, oh, so superior to everyone else... because they're wealthier (no longer true). It was an expression of horror at the idea that any inferior race should behave in this way to the great US of A. And, before any American leaps to deny this, may I say that I have reached this conclusion both from the behaviour of American visitors/ tourists to Asia, and the naivety of many of the American diplomats I have met here. American residents in Asia, of course, know better.

I understand you do not think 9-11 follow up is an over-reaction though & that was your topic.

I do think it is an over-reaction given what we know & where we are today after a decade of it.

I just don't think that it is realistic judge decisions/realisitc made in the past by what we know today. Do anyone think it was a mistake that we didn't raid that villa in Abbottabad 5 years ago instead of waiting until 2011? That might have saved a lot of lives. In life you can only base your decisions/reactions on what you know at the time, NOT what you might know years in the future.

I took what Isanbirder said to mean....Through intelligence gathering they could have used basically a small group/hit men to accomplish the task. Rather than the overreaction & its accompanying collateral damages.

Thanks, Flying; yes, I did.

I think the overreaction was at least partly caused by the American assumption that Americans are, oh, so superior to everyone else... because they're wealthier (no longer true). It was an expression of horror at the idea that any inferior race should behave in this way to the great US of A. And, before any American leaps to deny this, may I say that I have reached this conclusion both from the behaviour of American visitors/ tourists to Asia, and the naivety of many of the American diplomats I have met here. American residents in Asia, of course, know better.

So the reaction to 9/11 was based on racism? That's a new one.

I understand you do not think 9-11 follow up is an over-reaction though & that was your topic.

I do think it is an over-reaction given what we know & where we are today after a decade of it.

I just don't think that it is realistic judge decisions/realisitc made in the past by what we know today. Do anyone think it was a mistake that we didn't raid that villa in Abbottabad 5 years ago instead of waiting until 2011? That might have saved a lot of lives. In life you can only base your decisions/reactions on what you know at the time, NOT what you might know years in the future.

Well if it is any consolation....I would not have done what we did even right after 9-11

Instead I would have looked at

1) why our defense systems failed to react in a timely manner & correct the faults

2) why the attacks were perpetrated in the first place & how the perpetrators were able to enter & train as they did.

3) Gone after known perpetrators/organizers probably with a smaller/leaner covert operation AFTER verifying exact targets.

4) learned from the events & studied how to prevent them happening again & also looking closely at our foreign policies &

how they possibly contribute in continuing to breed hatred/retaliation against the American people. That our government claims to protect.

I understand you do not think 9-11 follow up is an over-reaction though & that was your topic.

I do think it is an over-reaction given what we know & where we are today after a decade of it.

I just don't think that it is realistic judge decisions/realisitc made in the past by what we know today. Do anyone think it was a mistake that we didn't raid that villa in Abbottabad 5 years ago instead of waiting until 2011? That might have saved a lot of lives. In life you can only base your decisions/reactions on what you know at the time, NOT what you might know years in the future.

Well if it is any consolation....I would not have done what we did even right after 9-11

Instead I would have looked at

1) why our defense systems failed to react in a timely manner & correct the faults

2) why the attacks were perpetrated in the first place & how the perpetrators were able to enter & train as they did.

3) Gone after known perpetrators/organizers probably with a smaller/leaner covert operation AFTER verifying exact targets.

4) learned from the events & studied how to prevent them happening again & also looking closely at our foreign policies &

how they possibly contribute in continuing to breed hatred/retaliation against the American people. That our government claims to protect.

Replies to each one...

1) As they said at the time, our national defense wasn't prepared to defend from an attack INSIDE our own country but from outside threats.

2) About 6 months after the attacks, whatever gov't agency responsible issued a pilot's license to one of the hijackers. IOW, gov't incompetence is the reason (and the reason I'm so against giving gov't bureaucrats control over just about anything - like healthcare for example)

3) I agree but remember it was pretty small at first then just escalated - like usually happens.

4) You will NEVER have a foreign policy loved by everyone. Changing it for a tiny minority is plain wrong. Remember, we are told that the Islamic fanatics who attacked us are only a tiny minority of Muslims and in no way represent them all.

So the reaction to 9/11 was based on racism? That's a new one.

Call it that if you like! I think Americans considered themselves superior just as we British considered ourselves superior when we were 'top dog'. We've taken a few knocks since (Suez comes to mind)... and so in their turn have Americans (Vietnam even before 9/11, and the less than successful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since). Inevitably that gets factored in to the response to any situation.

1) As they said at the time, our national defense wasn't prepared to defend from an attack INSIDE our own country but from outside threats.

2) About 6 months after the attacks, whatever gov't agency responsible issued a pilot's license to one of the hijackers. IOW, gov't incompetence is the reason (and the reason I'm so against giving gov't bureaucrats control over just about anything - like healthcare for example)

3) I agree but remember it was pretty small at first then just escalated - like usually happens.

4) You will NEVER have a foreign policy loved by everyone. Changing it for a tiny minority is plain wrong. Remember, we are told that the Islamic fanatics who attacked us are only a tiny minority of Muslims and in no way represent them all.

1) Yes basically that is a failing score. Defense is defense period. They would never have even been able to do what they did.

Yes they were inside but they were an outside threat that was both allowed in & trained in our country. What you said about our national defense is not prepared to deal with attacks within our country does in some ways support Isanbirders claim of us being somewhat pompous. To not expect an attack within our borders.

It suggests that we thought we were stronger than we were. I would venture to say that in many ways that has gotten worse as these days we take our National Guards for the most part out of State & out of Country. Lastly we also reacted poorly once we knew the events were in motion. Scrambling of jets & overall handling of the situation was poorly graded.

2) Again with the pilots license it is not only the licensing agency as I am not sure if they ever even got licenses. They did all four attend flight schools from time to time. But the one I remember was just a small FBO

The bigger question is that they were in the US on temp visa's renewed a few times & as of the event 3 of the 4 pilots were illegal status.

3) yes this is a big problem I have with all of this over-reaction. I see it not as a simple escalation but real growth due to our actions. I have mentioned it many times. We are creating more terrorist. There is no central govt to surrender no clearly definable goal except the eventual weakening of our country. We would sooner wipe out cancer,HIV, or the common cold than terrorism by the course of actions we now pursue. Lastly we are spreading ourselves thin these days. Does that make the US less or more vulnerable?

Defense is defensive not offensive. This Preemptive strike mentality is a sales pitch.

4) It is not just about 9-11 when I say our foreign policies needs re-thinking. It is not just about the group/groups we currently engage.

It has many areas & many reactions. It was not long ago many in Europe protested about our nukes being there.

Time for us to wake up & go back to what made our country great. Those things are not these.