9/11/09

[mkilly]

I'd like to share a couple things I wrote for today's newspaper:

http://www.uiargonaut.com/content/view/8469/48/
http://www.uiargonaut.com/content/view/8467/49/

[JonPorobil]

Well-written, Marcus.

We haven't gotten much rain lately down here, but it's pouring today. Like the sky knows. The flags are being flown at half-mast (oddly enough, on a rainy day like today, this would have been illegal before George W. Bush signed into law an act stating that the freedom to fly the American Flag shall not be inhibited), and an air of gloom is unavoidable today.

On a personal note, I've been in kind of a funk lately, and I feel like I'm on the way out of it, but it's tough to figure out how to feel today. I want to be happy, but it's tough not to think back on where I was eight years ago - a sophomore in high school, wandering through my day's classes, during which not a whole lot of teaching was going on; most of the teachers had (against the principal's wishes) suspended their curricula in favor of turning on the classroom TVs and letting us watch the news. I know they got in trouble for it later, and that thought still disturbs me.

It would still be about three and a half years before I'd even meet the woman I married. I had a Superbad-esque codependent friendship with a guy named David. Songfight was still young (15 months), and I wouldn't find it for another year and a half yet. I know that 9/11 inspired some of the titles (and, inevitably, some of the song lyrics) in the AlbumFight that JBB, ADD, and Frankie Big Face put together, which had just been released not long before my first appearance in this community (or maybe it was not long after?). In particular I'm listening to ADD's "Towering Inferno" and JBB's "New York" today.

I didn't know anyone who died in the towers. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who died in the towers. The tragedy is, for me personally, largely symbolic. I only laid eyes on the towers once, while driving past NYC from Newark to my summer camp in upstate New York. When my then-fiancee and I visited New York City, we didn't even see Ground Zero.

So this anniversary hits closer to home for many than it does for me. Even so, I feel it today. It's my generation's "where-were-you-when" question, like our parents' relationship to the assassination of President Kennedy back in '63, and their parents' "day that will live in infamy," 12/7/41. And it ushered in an era of fear that we're still not out of yet. I get angry when I hear about what you can and cannot bring onto an airplane, and the Terror Alert system drives me crazy. But they're there because our nation reacts to things strongly, especially things as powerful as such a fatal attack on our own soil. In that sense, our enemies celebrated a lasting victory that day.

Who's to say how, and in what aspects, our nation would be different today had 9/11 never happened? I know that from here, it feels like the terrorists took an already cracking nation and split it irreparably in two. On a bad day, it makes me so angry I could spit. Even on a good day, it makes me sad.

Sorry to ramble here; I know Songfight isn't my personal blog, but the DRC thread seemed as good a place as any to vent these random thoughts on this sad anniversary.

[jack]

yeah, the world changed that day, for the worse. the memory is still pretty raw for me too, and i have a hard time watching it on TV.

it's one of those "i'll never forget where i was at that moment" moments. my girlfriend was traveling and i was staying at her house taking care of her grandmother, her daughter, and her business. i was woken by grandma yelling that my girlfriend's brother was on the phone screaming and crying and she didn't understand why (she was from spain and didn't speak great english). when i got to the phone, he just kept saying "turn on the TV". it was pretty early in the morning and the first plane had just hit the building, and people still thought it was an accident. then the second one happened. by then it was complete media overload, with firefighters being interviewed as the sound of people hitting the lobby roof after jumping out of windows played in the background. that was so surreal. all day that day i could not stop watching it.

every generation seems to have their defining moments. for my parents, it was kennedy's assassination. for me, it was 9/11.

[Caravan Ray]

our enemies celebrated a lasting victory that day.

No - a group of criminals committed a particularly horrific crime that day. I had hoped that all this "our enemies" stuff had disappeared with Bush and his mates

[fluffy]

9/11/01 was the last day I ever had my clock radio wake me up to the morning news.

[JonPorobil]

our enemies celebrated a lasting victory that day.

No - a group of criminals committed a particularly horrific crime that day. I had hoped that all this "our enemies" stuff had disappeared with Bush and his mates

I refuse to let George W. Bush crib language. He can mangle English all he wants, but that doesn't take away my right to call a large organized group of criminal terrorists whose goal is the destruction of the United States of America "our enemies." If someone wants you dead, they're you're enemy. That's pretty basic linguistics.

[Caravan Ray]

our enemies celebrated a lasting victory that day.

No - a group of criminals committed a particularly horrific crime that day. I had hoped that all this "our enemies" stuff had disappeared with Bush and his mates

I refuse to let George W. Bush crib language. He can mangle English all he wants, but that doesn't take away my right to call a large organized group of criminal terrorists whose goal is the destruction of the United States of America "our enemies." If someone wants you dead, they're you're enemy. That's pretty basic linguistics.

Yes - you have a right to call a large organized group of criminal terrorists whose goal is the destruction of the United States of America "our enemies." - but it sounds like "Bush-speak" to me.

Since you mention "basic linguistics", I hate to be pedantic - but "terrorism" generally refers to indiscriminate violence, hence it is not necessarily correct to say "If someone wants you dead, they're you're enemy". The victims of terrorism are random and indiscriminate - generally not "enemies" of the perpetrators.

As for "a large organized group of criminal terrorists whose goal is the destruction of the United States of America" - I'm not really sure where you get this idea from? The goals of groups like al-Qaeda (assuming they were responsible) are generally the removal of foreign influence from Islamic countries. Committing a crime of this horrific nature was a means to an end. Not an end in itself. The only time I have ever heard anyone say that the goal of groups like al-Qaeda was "the destruction of the United States of America" was from your former President and his mates. Usually just before they wanted to invade somebody.

I don't think it is necessary to dignify the event by pretending it was some sort of act of war by "enemies of Freedom" the way Bush and his mates did. That only led to more stupid wars. It was a horrible crime committed by a mob of scumbags. A random act of extreme violence carried out by a few nutbags.

[Märk]

What amazes me is that they still haven't brought the responsible parties to justice. How would you get away with something like that? Whoever masterminded it was a powerful group, obviously. You'd almost have to be president of the United States of America or something...

[jack]

who knew sven mullet was actually charlie sheen?

[JonPorobil]

Since you mention "basic linguistics", I hate to be pedantic - but "terrorism" generally refers to indiscriminate violence, hence it is not necessarily correct to say "If someone wants you dead, they're you're enemy". The victims of terrorism are random and indiscriminate - generally not "enemies" of the perpetrators.

From Wiktionary (emphases mine):

Noun
Singular
terrorism

Plural
uncountable

terrorism (uncountable)

1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

From Dictionary.com (again, emphases mine):

–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Which part of that is indiscriminate? Sure, the individual victims are indiscriminate, as I doubt the 9/11 hijackers much cared which 3,000 people they killed, so long as a large number of people died. But you're suggesting that the hijacking was just some random act of violence, when it's obvious from the scale of the operation that their actual target was no smaller than the United States as a whole.

Now, for this last paragraph:

As for "a large organized group of criminal terrorists whose goal is the destruction of the United States of America" - I'm not really sure where you get this idea from? The goals of groups like al-Qaeda (assuming they were responsible) are generally the removal of foreign influence from Islamic countries. Committing a crime of this horrific nature was a means to an end. Not an end in itself. The only time I have ever heard anyone say that the goal of groups like al-Qaeda was "the destruction of the United States of America" was from your former President and his mates. Usually just before they wanted to invade somebody.

I had to gnaw on that paragraph for a little bit before it made sense to me. And I concede this point: the destruction of the U.S. is not their ultimate goal. But it's one step along the way. And it's clear as day to anyone that the group that hijacked those planes, knocked down the Twin Towers, part of the Pentagon, and tried to do lord-knows-what with that fourth plane certainly didn't execute such plans without harboring any ill will to the U.S.

So, to paraphrase. what I said was "they want us dead" when really what I ought to have said "They want the removal of foreign influence from Islamic countries, and they don't mind killing a few thousand Americans and other assorted nationalities to get it."

I maintain, however, that it's still really silly to pick at the phraseology of calling such people our "enemies" just because someone you really dislike used that word.

[jast]

While we're talking about the point of terrorism, perhaps I should put a link here: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/ ... tters_0712

[fluffy]

Jon,

It is clear that you are very passionate about this argument and desperately want to win, but you are using circular logic and a moving goalpost by conflating the actions with the intent, while also being prescriptivist about the meaning of words.

Take a breath and calm down a bit and then either re-read what Caravan Ray is saying (and also jast's link), or take a break from this thread. This isn't worth getting an ulcer over.

[Caravan Ray]

So, to paraphrase. what I said was "they want us dead" when really what I ought to have said "They want the removal of foreign influence from Islamic countries, and they don't mind killing a few thousand Americans and other assorted nationalities to get it."

Yes - I do not disagree with that. That is distinctly different from the "us versus them" language in which they are "enemies" whose "goal is the destruction of the United States".

[JonPorobil]

So, to paraphrase. what I said was "they want us dead" when really what I ought to have said "They want the removal of foreign influence from Islamic countries, and they don't mind killing a few thousand Americans and other assorted nationalities to get it."

Yes - I do not disagree with that. That is distinctly different from the "us versus them" language in which they are "enemies" whose "goal is the destruction of the United States".

One thing I love about this community is that you and I are trading jabs over here while chatting amicably in the Babelfish thread a couple of forums up. It's beautiful.

Anyway. Glad we reached a point of agreement.