Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Osama Bin Laden's goal when he blew up the Twin Towers was to disrupt normal life in America hasn't he already won?
We can find many examples of what I am talking about. Here are a few:
1. Getting on an airplane has changed dramatically for the worse. I agree that security is necessary to prevent domestic and foreign terrorism. However, I absolutely dread flying anymore. TSA and the rules it has imposed has virtually ruined any pleasure in this form of travel. I now think about every item I am carrying through that security line anymore. I even wear shoes that I know will be easy to take off. I never carry a laptop computer anymore because of the way they scrutinize those things. I make sure my clothes contain no metal. I even try to avoid wearing a belt. Worst of all I dread the mad rush when they almost throw your possessions that have been through the "screener" at you, to keep the line behind you moving. I have things confiscated by TSA agents in the past like a comb that was contained in what look like a knife sheathe.
2. Try getting into a government building anymore. You need I.D. You often have to pass through a metal detector. Again, you have to think about every item you are carrying into that building.
3. Security cameras everywhere. Ever get an itch in a private area of your body that you are afraid to scratch because you think its going to be on camera?
4. Access to some places is now very restricted. I was unable to take a group of scouts to see air traffic control operations at an airport. I am told that since 9/11 this is prohibited. If you take a tour of Hoover Dam or other major sites, you aren't allowed to see things you could have before 9/11. They restrict your movements and again, there is now screening through a metal detector.
5. Budget of billions of dollars to pay for Homeland Security. Much of this was not required before 9/11.
6. Iraq War. Cost of $1 trillion. 4300 American lives. More than half the country felt it was totally unnecessary.
7. Afghanistan War. Maybe we really do need to be there. However, there wasn't a problem before 9/11. Again, this is costing untold billions of dollars and the casualty count among our soldiers is rising.
8. The Patriot Act and other restrictions on personal liberty. Phone tapping by executive order and not by a warrant issued by a court.
I guess all this is a good deal if you work for the government in Homeland Security, DOJ, DOD, etc. For the rest of us taxpayers who have to foot the bill and pay the price for all this it just sucks.
If they killed Osama Bin Laden tomorrow, I think he could claim he lost the battle, but won the war.
i don't think his ultimate goal was to destabilize American life, it was to destabilize the american empire and its rulers! in that he has been an abject failure. with every suicide bomber the executive in dc assumes more power and that plays right into the hands of the people he is fighting
Actually the fourth amendment does prohibit it. The amendment states that a warrant has to be issued describing the specific place and people to be searched.
You seem to be sorely mistaken about what privelege means. A privelege is a type of right. Trading in your rights for certain priveleges is a situation that the founding fathers of this country were trying to escape. What you described in your above post runs completely contrary to the ninth amendment:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Rights afforded by the constitution are not conditional. They are not traded in for priveleges. This idealogy is the bedrock of the Constitution of the USA and one of the main reason why the War of Independence was fought against the British crown. It is amazing that an American citizen actually thinks that rights provided by the Constitution are negotiable and/or relative. Sad indeed.
I agree that our rights are non-negotiable, but you must remember there were no strap on bombs, no subways or airplanes in 1776.It is all to protect the general public and I have no problem with it. Now, if a cop asks to search my car, he had damned well better have probable cause or a warrant.
Of course. Why was this not obvious to everyone. In September 01 it was not the terrorists who closed the stock exchange for a week---it was the SEC. It wasnt terrorists who canceled major league baseball games for two weeks, it was MLB. It wasnt terrorists who grounded all airline flights for a couple of days, it was the FAA. Is wasn't terrorists who passed the Patriot Act, it was the US Congress.
The war lasted less than an hour, and the terrorists won, with a loss of only 19 men. The US government then started another war, and the first victim was the American people, whose country was occupied by new terrorists, and the American people surrendered immediately. So two separate wars were conducted by different terrorist groups in a matter of days, and the American people lost both of them.
i agree with you but it wasn't only the amreican people who suffered, the iraqis and afghanis suffered too. the executive and the military ind complex made out like bandits. the executive with more power and the mic with hard cash!
I do not think that the "terrorists" (which is an arbitrary, subjective term) won. If what they opposed was an interventionist American foreign policy, they did not get what they wanted. The USA has become even MORE interventionist. We have TWO wars going on now.
Here is a metaphor some here will have a problem with:
If a bully at school keeps picking on a select amount of kids, what do you think the bully is going to do if one of those kids retaliates? He is going to pick on that kid even HARDER than before.
And for clarification: I never think such violent acts as War or "Terrorist Attacks" are justified.
You say that it is your opinion that he is dead. OK, you are certainly entitled to an opinion. However, in the last video that Al Qeada released to the media with Bin Laden in it he has mentioned and talked about current events. The CIA and other foreign intelligence agencies have said it was authentic. So I am just curious as to why you think he is "long since dead?" What do you base your opinion on?
Also, someone mentioned that technology should be able to catch him. You've got a thousand-mile-long mountain range pockmarked with limestone caves on which the US army cannot set their boots. The tribal people within, who answer to no government, are fundamentalist Muslim and willing to protect OBL and his men. So explain what technology is available that would locate these people and make them accessible to us. Serious question--I have heard this claim before, and I want to know what the answer is.
I do not think that the "terrorists" (which is an arbitrary, subjective term) won. If what they opposed was an interventionist American foreign policy, they did not get what they wanted. The USA has become even MORE interventionist. We have TWO wars going on now.
Here is a metaphor some here will have a problem with:
If a bully at school keeps picking on a select amount of kids, what do you think the bully is going to do if one of those kids retaliates? He is going to pick on that kid even HARDER than before.
And for clarification: I never think such violent acts as War or "Terrorist Attacks" are justified.
That's a good point.
I wonder if they assumed the United States would take more of a "hands off" approach, as was the Clinton tactic.
I wonder if they assumed the United States would take more of a "hands off" approach, as was the Clinton tactic.
In addition, "they" roused up sympathy for America all around the world. If they really wanted to point out how we are an imperialist country, physical destruction is not going to do that. The "terrorists" are even worse than what they are fighting against. They lacked the foresight of how their actions would be received around the world.
If they are really fighting for the "victims" of our interventionist foreign policy, they are doing a horrible job.
First of all, I was in the WTC on 9/11 and then returned there to work for a few years, and while I see some change, it isn't all THAT drastic. I've flown a number of times--I enjoy it far more than I did before 9/11 since I no longer have a fear of death, and I didn't find airport security all that onerous.
Where the heck were you that you could get into a government building-or pretty much any corporate building--without ID before 9/11? Since 1993 most buildings had upgraded their security, at least in the NY metro area. Geez, at the WTC you couldn't get a pizza delivered upstairs--you had to go down 80 floors or whatever to pick it up from the guy.
Yes, security cameras have definitely increased. In some places, they were already there. You couldn't scratch your ***** at the WTC without being on camera before 9/11, either. Fat lot of good that did, huh?
As for the site restrictions, that is just sad, but necessary. The results of risk assessments, blast analyses, etc., all have to be taken into consideration now from a "what would I do if I were a terrorist" perspective.
The Patriot Act isn't necessarily bad if it's not abused. Good luck with that.
Won't even go into the wars--that's a whole animal unto itself.
.................................................. .................................................
Even if one feels "more secure" because of all the hassle getting on an airplane these days this still neglects the cost. The budget for TSA is over a $1 billion a year. I would say this is a direct outgrowth of 9/11.
You "won't into wars" You do realize the war in Afghanistan is a direct outgrowth of what happened don't you? If that costs $300 billion it is attributable to 9/11. Some Bush supporters claim the Iraq War resulted from the Twin Tower bombing. Others claim it has no connection. Whether it did or not, the cost still adds up daily and right now is at about $1 trillion.
Whether these things had to be done or not, the point is that they were done. When I measure the loss of liberty, loss of life, and loss of resources are country sustained, I think, unfortunately, the terrorists came out on top.
When I said I won't go into the wars, it was simply because it's too long and complex a topic for a single post.
Agree about all the cost issues. I'm fine with taking the risk of less security--I did continue to work at the WTC after 1993, after all, even though we knew there would likely be another attempt--but if something happened, there would be a heck of a lot of lawsuits. Can't win either way.
In addition, "they" roused up sympathy for America all around the world. If they really wanted to point out how we are an imperialist country, physical destruction is not going to do that. The "terrorists" are even worse than what they are fighting against. They lacked the foresight of how their actions would be received around the world.
If they are really fighting for the "victims" of our interventionist foreign policy, they are doing a horrible job.
Precisely.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how they would have gone about more effectively making the point they were trying to make.
Here in New York City when the government decides that the threat level is high they station police in the subways near the entrances. You cannot get on the train unless you allow a police officer to open your bag to make sure you are not carrying any bombs or expolosives. You can refuse but then you cannot ride the subway. This is a clear violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution.
When people put forth the "If you are not doing anything wrong than you have nothing to hide" argument in favor of such violations of our rights it saddens me to no end. It essentially says that if you are not a criminal than you should have no problem with giving up your rights guarunteed by the Constitution.
A lot of it has to do with the public transportation agency's risk. If the bags are not searched and someone carries a bomb on and YOU get injured, you are going to run right to a lawyer and sue the MTA (or whomever). The Port Authority is still handling all the litigation from the 1993 deaths and injuries after the court ruled a couple of years ago that it was 60% their fault the terrorists bombed the WTC because the PA made the parking lots accessible to the public. We'll probably all be dead before 9/11 lawsuits are finished.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
