This morning on local radio they are pondering the question – “is it time to put 9/11 behind us?”
My response – when did we put the invasion of Poland and Pearl Harbor “behind” us? When the war was over.
“A bomb-sniffing dog in Ankara helped Turkish authorities stop a massive terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. A van full of explosives in a parking garage would have devastated the center of the large city, and it would have served as a counterpoint to the messages released by Osama bin Laden in the past week […] This would make three terrorist attacks thwarted in the past week.”
Letter to a Friend: On Islamic Fundamentalism (Sept. 11, 2006);
Today is September 11th and I suppose every single person in this country knows what they were doing on this date five years ago. I recall the feeling of unreality I had as I watched a small TV screen here at home repeatedly play tiny images of two towers collapsing. And then, in the immediate aftermath, do you remember how many in this country – especially among intellectuals and academics – wanted to discuss what “we” had done to “deserve” this? Those were hard days, and in many respects the years since then have been harder still, for although I had by then already spent decades in the strange ideological climate of American academic life, I never expected to see such an orgy of “blame America first” unleashed in this country. Nor did I have any way of anticipating how serious the real consequences would be when those attitudes, nurtured in the idle confines of academia, spilled over into the very dangerous world outside.
I would hate it if our old friendship were to dissolve over politics, mere politics. But I can’t not respond to your last letter, in which you stated that you were just as worried by Christian as by Muslim fundamentalists. Repeatedly in the past few years I’ve heard acquaintances, even relatives, express the same view. To my mind, however, this is a preposterous comment, for it evades the crucial recognition that something new has been unfolding before our eyes. Not that 9/11 inaugurated that new stage. I think, rather, it marked the end of the beginning, and the subsequent stage, the middle part, is still underway.
h/t
At Wizbang, 6 Years Later.
Roger Simon reviews World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism – “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
And Lileks.
Related links are welcome in the comments.
Arrrrg. Hey Belisaurius, they may not have given up all the Golan Heights yet, but they just might soon:
http://patdollard.com/2007/06/08/israel-to-give-syria-the-golan-heights-and-trust-them-in-peace-deal/
See? Suicidally generous.
Thanks for those points, ex-liberal.
more objective facts about the brutal Israeli “occupation”:
– After the 67war, Israel began what is sometimes called its “mini-Marshall plan” for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, investing hundreds of millions of dollars to bring them both into the 20th century with regard to infrastructure, roads, sewerage, electricity, phones, radio and TV broadcasting, water purification and water supply.
– World Bank records indicate that the GDP of the West Bank grew at the average rate of 13% per year between 1967 and 1994. Tourism skyrocketed, unemployment almost disappeared as hundreds of thousands of Arabs worked in Israel’s economy earning far more than their counterparts in other Arab countries. Seven universities grew up on the West Bank in place of the three teachers training schools that existed before 1967.
– free and unencumbered access to Israel’s medical infrastructure resulted in a declining infant mortality and a rise in longevity. The infant mortality rate was reduced from 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000. Under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases such as polio , whooping cough , tetanus, and measles were eradicated.
• During the two decades preceding the First Intifada, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102%, and the number of classes by 99%, though the population itself had grown by 28%. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14% of adults over age 15 (compared with 61% in Egypt, 45% in Tunisia, and 44% in Syria).
ann, as ET dismissed me before, I’ve been through all this with her before – I guess I don’t understand her “objective reality”
Had a conversation with a neighbour who is a commercial jet pilot. In his opinion it is probable that a undertrained pilot could do the deed that was done, conditional on good weather conditions. If September 11, 2001 had had bad weather there is a real possibility the attack may have failed or more probably delayed. So my suspicion is allayed. But then, what about all those Jews who happened to be away from work that day …. Hmmm?
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html
No, ann, I won’t explain the cognitive nature of the human brain to you on this blog. Or the organizational nature of complex adaptive systems. I doubt if you’ve heard it all from your professors and etc.
And when I remind you that you are a student, it isn’t patronizing, but a caution – to be more open to debate, discussion and questions. You have made up your mind, too early, on these issues.
As for Israel – I reject its occupation of the lands set aside for the Palestinians.
I reject your earlier argument of Might Makes Right (the winner keeps the land).
And your current argument of Rhetoric (if you threaten me with destruction, then I get to keep the land).
Equally, I reject your current argument of ‘we keep the land because it’s next to ours’ and you are fighting us.
I reject any argument that requires the Palestinians to submit – ie, they must not be angry about the occupation, must not fight for the land – and because they are angry and fight, then, they have no ‘right’ to th eland.
I reject the common myths put forward: the myth of the Empty Land in 1948; the Myth of the Incompetent Economic Use of the Land; and the religious myth of God Gave Us The Land. These are all common arguments.
I also reject the First Footprint argument, ie, who was here first. It’s historically impossible to ascertain this and irrelevant. After all, such an argument would mean that no Europeans have any rights to live in America or Africa or Asia etc.
I also reject the argument of First Name – ie, that the Israelis have a right to the land and the Palestinians don’t because they weren’t called Palestinians long ago.
And, I reject the argument of Heredity – ie, that you have a right to the land If and Only If you can claim direct descent from a population that was there 1,000 years ago. There is no way that direct descent can be ascertained – and, I don’t think that it’s a ‘just tactic’ for land claims.
Solution? Two states. Remove ALL settlements from the occupied lands, pay compensation for the lost farms and houses and businesses; and equally share the resources – particularly the vital resource of water. The fact that Israel insists on a Jewish majority means that there cannot be one state. But this has to be a real state – not that Oslo Accord which was not an offering of a state but only of municipal governance.
“Solution? Two states. Remove ALL settlements from the occupied lands, pay compensation for the lost farms and houses and businesses; and equally share the resources – particularly the vital resource of water. The fact that Israel insists on a Jewish majority means that there cannot be one state. But this has to be a real state – not that Oslo Accord which was not an offering of a state but only of municipal governance.”
Good solution ET; I agree with it, wish it could happen, and thank you for the more civil tone. Now sell your solution to the Arab Palestinians. The Israelis have been trying to for years.
Remember Barak and Arafat at Camp David? Practically handed the Arabs the moon . . . One side simply doesn’t want peace, period. They want annihilation of the other. So I’d say the other side is perfectly in the rights to defend itself, even if defending itself means occupying the land of the other in order to ensure no more rockets rain down on its civilians.
Reject that all you want, and then try living in a kibbutz under Arab Palestinian missile range. You can counter with, “Try living in territory occupied by Israelis,” and I’d respond that, as I mentioned before, Arab Palestinians in the Gaza strip were caught on film saying they wished the Israelis occupied them again (as Hamas and Fatah continued causing bloodshed and chaos amongst their own people).
As for the cognitive nature of the brain, my brain says “I think, therefore I am . . . not an evolved amoeba.”
You can always refer me to some articles, especially if they’re online. I promise I’ll read them. I have read quite a few over the years . . . just don’t like what they tell me.
What is a human? Seriously?
wow, good one ET
I reject the myth of Palestinian nationalism
I reject the myth of occupation
I reject the myth of illegal settlements
I accept the facts:
the British Mandate for Palestine was to include all of Jordan. In the 1920s everything east of the Jordan River was off limits for Jewish settlement. the Jews accepted the 1947 partition plan, the Arabs did not. They could have had there state.
Why should Jews want to return to living as dhimmis in a “one state” solution scenario? do you want to live as a dhimmi?
am israel chai (the nation of Israel lives!)
Shana Tova to all SDA readers
L’shanah haba’ah birushalayim, ex-liberal.
Next year in Jerusalem!
ET proposed a great solution, didn’t he? S/He should try selling it to the Arab Palestinians, and good luck.
Sorry ET but you’ve got the cart before the horse so to speak. If you make Islam dominant in a western society you will within a few generations wind up with a ME style government.
While you seem to think I don’t understand tribalism as you define it, I don’t think you understand base belief as foundational to any society.
Witness the transformation of American/Canadian society that has occurred with the abandonment of our Christian roots. We as a society have become soft and not willing to stand up for truth or freedom. The idea of a cause greater than self has become an anathema to us.
Witness our repugnance at facing down those who would destroy our way of life and compare that with the selflessness of the soldiers who took and held Vimy Ridge.
What changed? Have we become more tribal? No, we in our society have elevated Self to the place of ultimate importance. We have abandoned sexual morality and accepted licentiousness as ultimate good. We have used poverty as an excuse for the government to play Robin Hood. We have used all sorts of reasons to excuse murder and assault. We play moral equivalence saying that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. We no longer fight the moral decay of drug and alcohol abuse and have become more than enablers by providing the materials free of charge! We have elevated the pursuit of material wealth to the point where stealing, extorting and false bookkeeping is expected and often even honored.
Having been around long enough I can remember a time when you could leave a rifle in the back window of your pickup truck with a case of ammunition sitting on the seat. The truck could remain unlocked on the street for the night and in the morning the tuck, rifle and ammo would still be where it was left. Now a bicycle chained to a tree for an hour is an open invitation to a bike thief. We have gone from a society where a barroom brawl resulted in a few black eyes and an exchange of a beer or two after the tempers cooled to a society where a mere glance is a valid reason to shoot or stab the offender to death. What has changed? Have we become more tribal? If we have it is only because we have abandoned the base belief of our fathers and grandfathers.
Indeed foundational to any society is its base belief. From its base belief springs the society’s form of government, moral code, how it treats its citizens and what roll it takes upon itself in the functioning of the world. A tribal society is tribal because the base belief of that society lends itself to tribalism. If you want to change a society change its base belief – just be careful what you replace it with. Any attempt to wed Islam with the hedonistic tripe now accepted as occidental civilization is bound to fail because the attempt will only incite further violence. Core to Islam is perfection through the total shunning of hedonism. In Islam, violence in the pursuit of perfection (removal of hedonism) is encouraged and even demanded.
Muslim,Christian,Jew or anyone else. Religion is crap to give people false hope and to keep the powers that be in power.