September 11th
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
Wanted to pose some questions here:
1. Why is september 11th refered to as the "worst act of terrorism in our nations history? Anyone with any background in history, or anyone who makes a cursory look at history will notice atrocities occuring on american soil, or what is now american soil, all the way back to when Columbus "discovered" America. Columbus and his men, would rape the Arawak, sic dogs on them, beat them, and set them on fire at the stake in groups of thirteens (christians know what this is in reference to). White "settlers" massacred an entire people. Native Americans were nearly exterminated. 10's of millions of Africans were transported from Africa to America for a lovely life of beatings, whippings and backbreaking work all to serve whites. 10's of millions of Africans died along the way in the so called Middle Passage. From the 1800's until the mid 1950's, black men were routinely hung/lynched for crimes they may or may not have committed, many revolving around the idea of a black man raped a white woman. The act of enslaving an entire people, is that not a terrorist act? How about giving Native Americans small pox? Or the continueing enslavement of blacks in jails and prisons, or the wanton brutality involved in the wholesale murder of many black males at the hand of raving lunatic pigs in inner cities? The murder of millions of Vietnamese, and use of napalm, is that terrorism? How about the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? The forced internment of Japanese Americans, that surely is not a terrorist act right?
Do those atrocities not constitute a terrorist actions? Are we so blind in society that we only care about ourselves? As Noam chomsky said, "september 11th wasnt extraordinary, what was, was the victim" (ie americans).
2. As a society we have to realize as Noam Chomsky suggested to even pursue the war against terror, is laughable. This barb is aimed at both parties. The fact that america is the single greatest purveyor of violence in our nations history makes it laughable we should want to eradicate it. If you feel thats too extreme, none other that MLK said that. He wasnt all that extreme in politics. He wasnt calling for seperatist ideas as malcolm was.
In your opinion is it even worth it to pursue this war on terrorism that is actually, terrorism!?
3. The fact we as a society fail to understand, we were hit on septemeber 11th not because of our freedoms. People under taliban rule didnt bomb a abortion clinic or a antiwar rally or a progun rally. They bombed the WTC because of our foreign policy. Until we realize that, nothing will change.
As ward churchill said :"stop killing our kids, if you want your own to be safe."
1. Why is september 11th refered to as the "worst act of terrorism in our nations history? Anyone with any background in history, or anyone who makes a cursory look at history will notice atrocities occuring on american soil, or what is now american soil, all the way back to when Columbus "discovered" America. Columbus and his men, would rape the Arawak, sic dogs on them, beat them, and set them on fire at the stake in groups of thirteens (christians know what this is in reference to). White "settlers" massacred an entire people. Native Americans were nearly exterminated. 10's of millions of Africans were transported from Africa to America for a lovely life of beatings, whippings and backbreaking work all to serve whites. 10's of millions of Africans died along the way in the so called Middle Passage. From the 1800's until the mid 1950's, black men were routinely hung/lynched for crimes they may or may not have committed, many revolving around the idea of a black man raped a white woman. The act of enslaving an entire people, is that not a terrorist act? How about giving Native Americans small pox? Or the continueing enslavement of blacks in jails and prisons, or the wanton brutality involved in the wholesale murder of many black males at the hand of raving lunatic pigs in inner cities? The murder of millions of Vietnamese, and use of napalm, is that terrorism? How about the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? The forced internment of Japanese Americans, that surely is not a terrorist act right?
Do those atrocities not constitute a terrorist actions? Are we so blind in society that we only care about ourselves? As Noam chomsky said, "september 11th wasnt extraordinary, what was, was the victim" (ie americans).
2. As a society we have to realize as Noam Chomsky suggested to even pursue the war against terror, is laughable. This barb is aimed at both parties. The fact that america is the single greatest purveyor of violence in our nations history makes it laughable we should want to eradicate it. If you feel thats too extreme, none other that MLK said that. He wasnt all that extreme in politics. He wasnt calling for seperatist ideas as malcolm was.
In your opinion is it even worth it to pursue this war on terrorism that is actually, terrorism!?
3. The fact we as a society fail to understand, we were hit on septemeber 11th not because of our freedoms. People under taliban rule didnt bomb a abortion clinic or a antiwar rally or a progun rally. They bombed the WTC because of our foreign policy. Until we realize that, nothing will change.
As ward churchill said :"stop killing our kids, if you want your own to be safe."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
As far as the "worst act of terrorisim" I agree it is. That one act turned the United States, the world's leader on it's head. Can you really say with the outcome and the wars that Sept 11 triggered renders it effective as the worst act of terrorisim.
If you consider sept 11th as a terrorist act, of course it was the worst act of terrorism because it caused the most number of deaths in one time.
But it's not the worst act of war if you consider it a war act (for me it was not a war act).The worst act of war was Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
From an article here: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/682/682p21.htm
"The British mandate of Palestine was declared on September 11, 1922, backed by its imperial army “at the gates of Gaza”. The Palestinians’ ongoing struggle for justice unfolds on screen before us.
General Pinochet in Chile launched his US-backed coup on September 11, 1973, leading to thousands being murdered and thousands more “disappeared”.
It was on September 11, 1990, that Emperor George Bush I announced to Congress his government’s plans to go to war against Iraq.
And the most notorious September 11 — the bombing of the twin towers in 2001, was used by Emperor George II “to fuel yet another war ... by cynically manipulating people’s grief, by packaging it for TV specials ... what we are seeing now is a vulgar display of the business of grief, the commerce of grief, the pillaging of even the most private human feelings for political purposes”. "
---
September 11th is referred to the "worst act of terrorism in US history" probably because the general public don't really learn history properly in schools, or learn a very biased pro-West type lessons where they don't realise the significance their country along with Europe's actions have had on others.
It's a good time to revisit her speech here: http://nmazca.com/verba/roy.htm
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
Maybe it's because some Americans refer to America as 'the worlds leader' that they are attacked?
America's illegal invasion of Panama which resulted in the slaughter of aproximately 10,000 people, was a worse act of terrorism that 9/11.
By the way, are you aware that the U.S is the only country to have been officially charged with state terrorism in the world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_vs._United_States
What was unusual about 9/11 was that it was 'them' attacking 'us'. Whereas 'we' have been attacking 'them', whether directly or indirectly - i.e, Israel - for years, with impunity. My only surprise is that it didn't happen earlier. Maybe the fact that the Bush administration had full knowledge of the planned attacks and chose to let them happen is why they happened. Read the 'Project for a new American century's' year 2000 manifesto......
The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
“Even should Saddam pass from the scene,” the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, “may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.”
A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC.
The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”
“They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,” Maletz said. “Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.
The “new Pearl Harbor,” in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the “war on terrorism” shortly after 9-11.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html
As far as Che's point #1, he's doing what so many on the left are accusing the Bush administration of doing - watering down the definition of terrorism. Not every violent act against another is terrorism. Rednecks hanging blacks in the 1800's wasn't terrorism. It was murder and racism to be sure. It was an atrocity to be sure. But it wasn't terrorism.
How do YOU define terrorism then?
From here (http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/chref/chref.py/main?query=terrorism&title=21st&sourceid=Mozilla-search) it sounds pretty much that the US's actions against blacks, native americans, chile and panama are all quite relevant.
terrorism noun the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands. terrorist noun, adj.
ETYMOLOGY: 18c.
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
It doesn't seem like 'Native Americans' are really considered 'Americans' at the time. When you speak of Columbus, that really wasn't 'our nation's soil'. That was before 'America's' time. Same thing with the slave trade you mention. Even when this was 'America', blacks weren't considered to be a full person at first. I'm sure the argument could be made that they still aren't (but not in the de jure segregation sense, now more of a de facto segregation as well as all the other underlying issues). Do you think when Japanese Americans were put in internment camps, that people really viewed them as Americans? I'd say that these issues you mention are all tied together in a very broad, sweeping way that all concern what it means to be an American and how many groups have been victimized for a very long time. In some of the examples you mention, it seems like Americans are the terrorists. That doesn't sit well with many people, and that's why you're not seeing it painted that way too often.
If it makes you feel any better, I've seen the Ku Klux Klan decsribed as a terrorist organization in some social studies books.
cross the river to the eastside
For example, bringing millions of Blacks to become slaves is definitely not a terrorist act in US soil. You could consider it a terrorist act against African countries. But as far as US soil goes, it's slavery, not terrorism.
What happened to the Indians is more tricky. What happened to the Indians was not terrorism because it was invasion/occupation, a war in other words.
What terrorists do is not to gain land but to cause grief just for the sake of grief.
This is why I think it's called the worst terrorist act, it's true based on the definition of the word terrorism. Now this was purely an argument on the definition so please don't call me a heartless bastard
Bridge School '06 Night 1 & 2
Venice '07 pummeled by the sleet!
Nijmegen '07
Werchter '07
April Fools ~ LA1
Personally, I'm not sure where you are going with this. In fact it sounds quite racist (even though you may not mean it that way) because what you are saying sound similar to what Churchill himself said in that he does not believe that just because someone was in a land before he was that it was their right to be there. He was referring to Palestine but he also referred to native americans. To me it doesn't matter whether america was "america" when it happened as it became "america" because of it by people who were the beneficients of the country's actions against the natives. Why shouldn't that count?
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
Let's just define all violence against anyone by anyone as terrorism and completely take away the meaning.
And just saying that Chile and Panama were relevant acts of terrorism on US soil doesn't make it so. Unless you've also redefined the definition of US soil to include Central and South America. If so, you might want to let them know.
I just stubbed by toe. Fucking terrorist desk chair!!!
And to answer your question, no ... These things, while horrible, are not by definition terrorism. Is it too much to ask to just use the term in the correct fashion? I mean, start a thread on cultural genocide or something, and you can make the point without seeking to change ANY definitions.
In our history, it doesnt matter what was intended by others. Meaning even if the hijackers on 9/11 felt what they did was not terrorism, or even if the the people who bombed pearl harbor felt what they did was not terrorism, or if the people in the weather underground (1960/1970's activist militant group). That all is pointless. The state and the system, our government considers it terrorism.
Yet when we bomb iraq, or bomb afghanistan or do any of the things mentioned in previous threads, it is never EVER TERRORISM! It is always something else.
Again, I think some of you missed the statements put forth. Noam Chomsky said the US was hypocritical, it fails to put the same standards on itself that it puts on other countries.
What is the difference between the lynching of 3000 plus black males and the 9/11 attacks? How is one universially considered terrorism, and the other not?
Terrorism is a horrible thing, yet Jeffbr, by claiming that to use it accurately, is to lessen its impact it crazy and absurd. After 9/11 the world reaction was anger, and was one of sypathetic views to the U.S. Yet no other country was SURPRISED by it. Terrorism happens all the time, its just that it happens to us (u.s. whites or u.s. citizens) very rarely.
Terrorism is terrorism. To only suggest that Alqaeda or saddam or hitler or stalin or mao or whoever, to suggest only they are capable of it, is a farce.
By and large terrorism happens daily, whether its the unexploded bomb left by u.s. occupiers in iraq that some iraqi child mistakes for a coke bottle, or whether its the use of agent orange and napalm, or the deliberate use of small pox, the ku klux klan, anti abortian bombings, etc... Terrorism, the word and the meaning and power, isnt lessened by admitting this. It only gives a greater perspective on what it actually is.
Only when we as americans can feel as horrified by the murder of iraqi babies due to our bombs, or the deliberate deaths of african americans in hurricane katrina, or the effect our weapons have on the environment, ONLY then will terrorism be reduced in number. only then will our debate really begin.
Woah. I certainly don't think the 'Native Americans' didn't have a right to be here. Let's see if I can clarify. I can see how some can say it's the worst terrorist incident in our nation's history, even though I may not personally believe that. I would think that some people who believe that look at things like 'our history' from when our nation was founded. Our nation was founded in a way, separately from the people who were already here, and without much regard to them. 'Native American history' and 'American history' usually cover two different histories (kind of like Black history or women's studies, although those incorporate more current American history themes, and those exist to make up for what's left out of the white male American history that is known as American history). Some people who think 9/11 is the worst terrorist event may be looking at history through the scope of traditional American history, and not early people's history, before 'our nation' was founded. And for terrible events like the Trail of Tears, things that Americans were responsible for, well, some people don't want to see Americans as the terrorists. That's not how I feel, but take a look around. My whole point, finally, is that this doesn't surprise me. Our history is the white man's history--everything they did and it's told from their perspective (women and people of color are ghettoized in history books). 'We' could never be terrorists in our history, and of course when our financial center is bombed and thousands of 'us' (and others that don't get mentioned) are killed, yes, I can see it being called the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history.
cross the river to the eastside
That's what I'm trying to say, thanks. I can't see any way that the slave trade could be considered an act of terrorism on the US. Although, I would say that the KKK has committed terrorist acts on black Americans. They systematically use acts of violence to scare and intimidate (and harm!) them. I also agree with Che that abortion clinic bombings (and anthrax and acid attacks) are terrorist attacks for the same reason--systematic violence to scare, intimidate, and harm.
And the Indians, well, that's just fucked.
cross the river to the eastside