On the day of the September 11 massacre, I was off work, post-call from a night at the hospital. I was puttering in the garden. Then I was on the internet. A friend messaged me to look at the news. One of the twin towers was on fire.
I thought, that's bad. But not earth shattering. Except to whoever was in the tower. He said, no, this is a major fire.
I turned on the news, and saw it was a lot more than that. This was a horrendous fire. Then, watching the news, an airliner flew into the second tower, and it was engulfed in flames. There were people falling from the towers, to their deaths. During those falls, they knew they would die in minutes, or seconds.
Here I am, maybe 3,000 miles away, watching the scene of mass murder. At the time, no one knew who was responsible.
Then, I watched on TV as a tower collapsed. At that moment, I was stunned. I kept thinking, there is something not just wrong, but surreal, about that. On the news, they said there may have been 40,000 people inside.
I emailed my partner, who was in China at the time. He didn't believe me.
Then, the 2nd tower collapsed.
There was a news announcement. Another plane crash, at the Pentagon. Another plane headed to DC.
On that day, thousands of people were murdered. Many thousands more lost their loved ones, their child, their parent, their sibling, their friend, their lover, their spouse, their breadwinner, their confidant, their colleague.
On that day, the sky emptied of airplanes. No vapor trails. Clear blue sky. Eerie, and silent.
There are not many things that happen in a lifetime, when we can say "that day changed the world", or "changed our way of life". But on that day, the world did change, and our way of life did change. For the worse.
Looking back, at all of the water under the bridge, it feels like half a lifetime. Economies were devastated Families lost their source of income. We fought 2 wars. Thousands more died, possibly hundreds of thousands. Politics in the US became more dysfunctional, more brutal, more harsh. The world became more harsh.
Fast forward to today.
Today at work, no one seemed to remember, today is Sept 11th. People do talk about current events, but not this.
It's a day that we should all remember, up close and personal, in detail. I' want to commemorate the date. So much happened. So much changed. Those of us here, now, despite what we've gone through, we are the fortunate ones.
I don't have anything political, or social, or religious to say today. Just, that I remember.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
One major cause is people not having rights in their countries.
That's very true, but much depends on who wrote what you read.
American foreign aid money is one of the reasons for the lack of democracy.
After 25 years, Iranians overthrew their American-backed shah and the ayatollahs returned from exile. America admitted the shah for medical treatment and angry young Iranians took over the American embassy.
Elsewhere during the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union, America gave foreign aid to any ruler who opposed the Soviet Union. Those rulers jailed or killed all who opposed their rule.
To survive, many left their homelands. Today their sons and grandsons are the non-state actors, the terrorists, who are killing Americans.
I wasn't disagreeing. It was a short-sighted foreign policy. And immoral. Probably idealistic goals like doing right by the people of Iran, got lost because of "realistic" immediate goals - and long-term it hurt the USA as well as the people of Iran. Better to stay on the moral high ground.
I saw a bit of a BBC documentary on Iran. It seems there are many young people in Iran who aren't at all fundamentalist. Iran isn't in fundamentalist lockdown, there's a lot of variety.
The people who join this site from those Middle Eastern countries, are also cause for hope.
Probably idealistic goals like doing right by the people of Iran, got lost....
Luara, (BTW I hope you're recuperating) There were no idealistic goals to lose.
For both a short summary and a longer history than most people want, search Wikipedia for 1953 Iranian coup.
Before you read it inoculate yourself with this: Our earliest ancestors were pond scum, and to be honest we have come a long way.
well, we (the USA) do supposedly care about human rights and democracy in the rest of the world. The decision-makers probably thought they were being hardboiled and realistic about Iran.
But in the long term, it's more realistic to care about the humans elsewhere. Idealism is realistic.
The US has actively and purposefully done more to frustrate democracy abroad than any other nation. It's not idealism unless one considers economic hegemony an ideal.
Idealism is realistic.
The dictionary I use, New Oxford American, says to contrast idealism and realism. Please do.
Politics taught me new definitions for idealist and cynic. They do not conform to the definitions I heard in college philosophy courses; I will prefix them here.
Political idealists want the world to be better than it can be.
Political cynics want the world to be worse than it is.
I usually have to explain the second. Political cynics want the world to be worse than it is so their deeds draw less attention.
There are lessons to learn, but will America's leaders learn them?
Will the American people learn them? Ever?
I spend/waste a lot of time reading the comments following Yahoo tabloid "News" articles, and there still seem to be more idiots out there than I could imagine; people who are sure Obama is a secret Muslim (although that may be a code euphemism for the n-word), that Hawaii isn't a state (it didn't seem to bother anyone in 2008 that John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, which was never part of the US), that church/state separatists are trying to prevent xians from praying on privately-owned land, etc.
There are too many people who ignore or disregard proven facts because they contradict their emotionally comforting beliefs. They never will learn anything because they don't want to, and they are brainwashing their children to be just like them. The only hope for all of us is that some of their children aren't buying that bull.
I was spending the Spring/Summer/Autumn of 2001 on my old mining claims way up above timberline in Colorado. Ironically, I had also been up there on that other 9/11 in 1973 (CIA backed coup in Chile), hiding from Nixon and living like a bear in a mine tunnel at 13,000'.
It had snowed a little the night before, and I watched the white melt off as sun struck the high peaks to the west and I crunched down to the lake and caught a fish for breakfast. Back at the old roofless cabin I kindled a fire and then spun the hand-cranked radio to catch the morning news. Amid the usual stuff was a matter-of-fact report that a small airplane had just collided with one of the World Trade towers -- an unfortunate accident. And then came reports that it was actually a large airliner, and then that another had hit the second tower. I never made breakfast that morning, but instead cranked the radio almost continuously for hours, days, weeks.
I stayed up there for another couple of months until deepening snow drove me down. In that time I had heard our President speak the word 'Crusade', and I started thinking about maybe not going back down at all. I met only one other person in that time, and he hadn't heard of the attacks. We shared his half-gallon of Jack Daniels sitting around the fire and talking about war and religion.
Unlike most of humanity, I didn't see the images of 9/11 until catching a retrospective ten years later. I had my own reaction from the radio reports, and a lot of solitary time to contemplate the consequences. But I missed getting the visceral punch in the gut that most experienced, if not directly then almost immediately, in the way that only images convey.
I was outraged when my nation went to war with Afghanistan for emotional reasons -- pure revenge with very little rational counterbalance or legal validity. Hell, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, as were the instigators and German based planners. But we didn't hold the house of Saud or Germany accountable. No, we attacked the hideout of bin Laden.
Now I wasn't and am not a fan of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan or anywhere. They horribly persecute anyone not conforming to their religious fundamentalism and have acted much like Alabama politicians did during the reign of the KKK. The US demanded that they turn over bin Laden, and they refused on grounds that we hadn't provided evidence of culpability as recognized under international law, which was true at the time. Nonetheless, they offered to try to capture and extradite him to Pakistan, and our government refused the offer. We were a wounded animal hell-bent on revenge and just had to kill something -- anything. And so we killed Afghanistan and are still dealing with the stinking corpse a dozen years on. And then, incredibly, while on a bloody roll, we also killed our old ally turned enemy Iraq on entirely conflated 'evidence', despite the fact that doing so ran precisely counter to any US interests.
The US forever lost any pretense of moral authority on 8/6-8/9/1945, and threw away its last scrap of credibility on 3/19/2003.
Ted, the 9/11/01 attack affected Americans in many ways, but to say the US forever lost any pretense of moral authority on 8/6-8/9/1945 ignores vast amounts of history, both American and Japanese.
I won't support that view here because you might be unwilling to accept any view but that one.
Please do, however, consider
1) the 1937(?) Japanese atrocities in Nanking, China, and
2) the 1945 Japanese military's determination to commit national suicide.
I in no way apologize for the atrocities carried out by imperial Japan. In the summer of 1945 my mother was serving on a ship in the Pacific, and my father was in Germany, expecting orders to deploy against Japan. So, even though I wasn't yet around, I had 'skin in the game', so to speak, regarding an invasion of Japan.
By at least May of that year the Japanese ruling classes realized that their war was lost, and Emperor Hirohito was actively trying to surrender. He was frustrated by General Tojo who intended to fight until the last man (and attempted a coup), and as well by President Truman who stubbornly refused any surrender that left Hirohito on the throne (which the US did anyway after the surrender). Of course, using just these three names is a simplification, and many other personalities and factions were significantly involved. Moreover, Japan was hoping for surrender mediated by the Soviet Union, though they must have known that Roosevelt had promised Japan to Stalin at Yalta. It should be remembered that the Soviets were our allies at the time.
Perhaps dropping the world's first nuclear bomb on Hiroshima shifted Japanese thinking somewhat, but it was the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria on 9/9/1945 that effectively ended the war. The bomb dropped later that day on Nagasaki was nothing but a fist shown to Stalin -- an exhibition that Truman now had an enormous prosthetic dick, and that all earlier deals were off.
It was mass murder for imperial gain by the US -- nothing more. That's why I say that we forever lost any claim to moral superiority with that act. Not that we hadn't greatly tarnished the claim before, and haven't continued to do so since. But that one act stands symbolically as the full embrace by the US as the face of death in the world.
Ted, an interesting term -- the narcissism of small differences -- applies to some of the conversations here, but at the same time we do have to use language carefully.
You said above Japan was hoping for surrender mediated by the Soviet Union.
The histories I've seen say the Japanese military, who had long ruled the nation, preferred death to surrender.
Are both of us correct?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...they must have known that Roosevelt had promised Japan to Stalin at Yalta.
If true, that would strengthen your case. I don't recall seeing anywhere that:
1) Roosevelt had promised Japan to Stalin at Yalta, or that
2) [Japan's leaders] knew Roosevelt had promised Japan to Stalin at Yalta.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It should be remembered that the Soviets were our allies at the time.
Military allies for about five years.
Economic allies, never. President Woodrow Wilson sent American troops to help the non-Leninist Russians defeat the Leninist Russians.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It was mass murder for imperial gain by the US -- nothing more.
Were the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo not mass murders?
Or do you object to the use of atomic bombs?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BTW, I too oppose America's dog-eat-dog capitalism.
But look at the consequences of those particularly hardboiled and "realistic" acts, the atomic bombings of Japan. The USA demonstrated to the world that in a pinch, we would use this new and super-powerful weapon to horribly kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, and doing an involuntary science experiment on millions more. No sooner was the atomic bomb developed than it was used - forever destroying the hope that nuclear weapons could be considered too awful to be used, that humanity might agree to be nicer to each other than that. The USA went ahead and used them, to swiftly end a war that we were winning anyway. And other nations immediately decided they had to have the bomb also. The atomic bombings helped put us in this awful situation where a lot of countries have nuclear weapons and some other government might decide - when they are in a pinch - to use them. Helped create one of the worst dangers facing humanity.
Compared to that, swiftly ending a war is almost a triviality. The USA had the option to make a moral statement, to claim a moral high ground, by not using the A-bomb. But they didn't, and that could end up making the difference between humanity destroying itself and not.
The atomic bombings could also be part of the reason for the phobia people have about nuclear power. Nuclear power is associated with Hiroshima and horrible injuries. But avoiding nuclear power has made global warming much worse.
And if one atrocity justifies another, all atrocities are OK. You can always find some justification, some grievance to avenge.