this isn't some political debate -- let's show some respect and not turn it into one.
It's called "The Path to 9/11." Half of the four hour movie really makes you hate and blame the government, but once they show this scene with George Bush talking to the kids, you really want to kill this idiot of a president.
Did you watch the entire six hour film? If you did, how could you get so angry at Bush you want to kill him? I feel you didn't understand that 2/3rds of the film took place from January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001. Also known as the Clinton years.
People are going to whine about "political debate" turning. This is interesting because what has been stated in this thread is a desire for the West to defeat Islamism by a handful of posters. It's sad that desiring to keep our culture (even if we may quibble on the details) is decried as a "political debate" instead of supported wholeheartedly.
Infact, demanding "respect" by not discussing "politics" (i.e merely saying we "feel" for the victims, instead of addressing the issues forced upon us) is in and of itself a "poltical debate" in most regards. This is the most important issue of our time, whether we will stand for our culture or surrender it and let it fall to ruin. The great "political debate" out of 9/11 is between those who feel it was an abberation, a disaster, a one-time event, much like a hurricane or earthquake. On the other hand are those who recognize the global clash between Western Civilization and Islamism, and wish to determine how to prevent further 9/11s.
Delving deeper into the thread, we see that myself, Matthew and Riot infact did not begin a "political debate" as the only politics (in terms of actual political recourse) entered with Shep blatantly, later mvpshaq32 by implication. The only "debate" was over the "remembering" of 9/11 which Jugs first used to score personal points with. Then it degraded into a misunderstanding. People like Axel and bigh0rt are speaking of remembering the actual event, whereas I believe Riot was speaking of remembering the important meaning behind 9/11 not simply the event. (Which allows someone like bigh0rt to state, "well, I WAS THERE so therefore my opinion matters more" in implied terms.) (EDIT: I see Riot has started to directly articulate that point in the post he made while I was working on this.)
Nevertheless, I wish to get back to the film mvpshaq32 brings up. This will lead to things that will be savaged as "political" but in reality is a simple recounting of historical facts, with a conclusional analysis to follow.
Being angry at Bush for gathering his thoughts and containing panic for five minutes while the children finished reading is the most absurd thought to have. Especially the desire to kill him because he allowed the children to finish before leaving the room. (Should he, as many have implied, jumped out of his seat, screamed "WE'RE UNDER ATTACK!!!" and ran out? Then hopped on a plane to New York and held the towers up himself?)
I know what you're really saying however. You're angry at Bush for not preventing 9/11 from coming to pass. Blaming one man, and this one specific man, for an event years in the making. I left to assuming you did infact view the film in it's entire length on both nights, and took all the governmental failures displayed and proscribed them all directly on one man. George W. Bush.
Before we asign blame to anyone regarding 9/11, and this is of utmost importance in a "remembering" of 9/11 and it's meanings, let's examine the facts before us and draw conclusions from them.
While there had been Islamist terrorism in the world prior to the Clinton Administration, it did not begin in ernest and directly against the West until that point. (Infact, the Middle East was not overly Islamist and thus there was much infighting, in the wake of expanded Islamist or Islamist allies in the Middle East the focus turned against the West.) The end of the Iraq-Iran War and the beginning of the Gulf War is essentially the flash point for the Islamist war against the West. In the wake of the start of the war, Islamist forces launched a new campaign against the West with the intent of it's destruction and not simply regional concerns as Middle Eastern terrorism had previous been focused. While smaller attacks were in many numbers there are a number of major attacks or attempts against the West and the United States in particular. Seven of these could be considered direct acts of war. (And the failed attempt would certainly have been one had it succeded. With the final attack finally being considered one.)
First Attack:
Thirty-eight days into the Clinton Administration in 1993, on the second anniversary of the cease fire in the Gulf War, the World Trade Center was bombed by Ramzi Yousef and a rag-tag bag of terrorists. Evidence strongly suggets that Yousef was an IIS agent. Easy arrests come because of the morons Yousef used, one was captured trying to get a refund on the truck used in the bombing. The New York FBI believes the men were intended to be caught to protect connections. Despite a later attack against the UN building, Holland and Lincoln Tunnels being uncovered and a same day bombing in Cairo, the Clinton Administration quashed the investigation into state connections preferring it to be a small group of terrorists. Even after Iraqi intelligence attemps to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait, the CAdmin stops further investigations and it's only response is to bomb an empty building in Iraq.
Second Attack:
In 1994 Yousef arrives in the Phillipines, after his arrival a mall, the Miss Universe pageant, a Wendy's, Greenbelt Theatre and finally Phillipine Airlines Flight 434 are all bombed. An attempt was also made to bomb the Israeli embassy in Bangkok. In 1995, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed his "uncle" arrives in the Phillipines and they begin work on "Operation Bojinka." Bojinka would have began with an assassination of The Pope, then President Clinton, followed by bombings of twelve US airliners, before ending with a small plane filled with bombs flown into CIA headquarters. Further ideas discussed were hijacking planes and flying them into the Sears Tower, The Pentagon, The Capitol, The White House, the Transamerica Building and the World Trade Center. They were caught after a chemical fire, Murad (that day) and Yousef (a month later in Pakistan after lower level officials overruled the Clinton Adminstration) were caught while KSM fled to Qatar. This is the only response to the Bojinka plot.
Later that year the US Mission to the Saudi National Guard was bombed killing two Indians and five Americans. The biggest boming in Saudi history, the Saudi's blamed Iraq due to the sophistication of the attack. The same day Egyptian diplomat is killed, an dsix days later the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad was bombed, fifteen killed. The same cover group claimed responsibility for all the attacks.
Third Attack:
In April of 1995, the Federal Building in Oklahoma City is bombed. Despite plenty of witnesses and mountains of evidence of a "third party Middle Eastern man" involved in the bombing and planning, the official story becomes that Terry Nichols (who traveled to the Phillipines and met with Abudl Hakim Murad (Yousef's right hand man) a number of times prior to the bombing) and Timothy McVeigh acted alone. The Clinton Adminstration destroys physical evidence and halts the local FBI and investigators from persuing the investigation futher.
Fourth Attack:
Three years after the US bombing of IIS headquarters (in retailation for the Bush attempt), Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia was bombed, killing 19 US servicemen and one Saudi. The United States blames Hezbollah and thus by proxy Iran. Saudi's believe Iraq or Iran responsible. The Clinton Adminstration quashed further investigations into connections as they were attempting to improve relations with Iran at the time. Not until June 21, 2001 under the Bush administration did the US government issue indictments in relation to the bombings.
Off-Season, the Seeds of the Next Attacks:
1997-early 1998 can be considered the off-season for Islamist terror, as they made deals and al-Qaeda picked up a key free agent. The deadliest attack ever committed in Egypt occurs in this year when six gunmen entere the Hatsheput Temple and for 30 minutes methodically shoot and knife tourists trapped inside. 58 tourists are murdered along with three police officers and a tour guide. Local militants had been crushed a year earlier. Two months later Iraq starts a new UNSCOM crisis, in this crisis Egypt switches and moves towards Iraq's position. No follow up attack ever occurs despite initial beliefs it was a new wave of terror.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would join al-Qaeda in 1997, becoming head of the military committee and effectively the brains of the operation. (He planned all the attacks that followed.) Within months Ayman al-Zawahiri (then bin Laden's number two, he's the guy who's in all the videos nowdays) visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President and further meetings with bin Laden representatives were planned. (No information on if these meetings did infact come to happen however.) Four days after a memo detailing the setting up of these meetings bin Laden issued a new fatwa on the plight of Iraq, urging followers to attack the United States inorder to lift sanctions on Iraq. Bin Laden's first message in support of Iraq (he had previously been antagonistic versus Saddam before reaching a non-aggression treaty of sorts in 1993) comes after the arrival of KSM and meetings with Iraqi officials. KSM's arrival would also begin the transformation of al-Qaeda from a militant group who botched all their early terror attempts and was little more than a funding operation into super-terrorists who would strike Embassies, Warships and finally America itself.
Fifth Attack:
In August of 1998, US embassies in Dar Es Salaam and Nariobi are bombed, over 250 are killed and 4000 injured. The Clinton Adminstration responds by indicting various al Qaeda members, bombing an empty training camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan with no ties to terrorism or chemical weapons. At roughly the same time Iraq attempts to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague, forces UN Weapons Inspectors out and is bombed by the US and UK for three days in response. Afterwards Faruq Hijazi, the deputy director of IIS, met with bin Laden in Afghanistan and offer safe haven. Two IIS agents assigned to the Embassy in Pakistan travel to Afghanistan twice and arrangements were made to meet further, they stress strenghting ties between Iraq, bin Laden and the Taliban.
Congress passes and President Clinton signs the Iraqi Liberation Act making it official policy of the United States to remove Saddam Hussien from power.
bin Laden also famously declares war on the United States this year.
Sixth Attack:
The so-called "Millennium Plot" of three attacks was thwarted in two instances and aborted in the third. Four sites in Jordan were to be bombed targeting US and Israeli tourists, however Jordianian intelligence and police broke up the plot arresting 16 including Boston taxi driver Raed Hijazi believed to be the ringleader of the operation. Ahmed Ressam is caught at the Canadian border on the way to bomb LAX, he and three others arrested. In Yemen, an attempt was made to bomb USS The Sullivans with a boat filled with explosives, but the boat was overloaded and sank before detonating. Richard Clarke and other Clinton Administration officials admit they got lucky in thwarting the two direcly American related areas of the plot as they had no prior indications.
Seventh Attack:
On September 22, 2000, bin Laden and other members of terrorist groups appear on a tape on Qatar TV making threats to attack American ships. On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was bombed by a small craft that approached the side and exploded. 17 were killed and 39 injured. President Clinton declares it an "act of terrorism" and (not an "act of war") vows to "hold [those responsible] accountable." Clinton states "America is not at war" and never mentions any threat by name. Sandy Berger does not mention al-Qaeda on "Meet The Press" the weekend of the attack. Madeleine Albright and William Cohen rebuke Richard Clarke believing attacking al-Qaeda will derail the Israel-Arab peace process. The Clinton Administration does not respond in anyway.
On November 3, 2002, a Predator fired a Hellfire missle at a vehicle containing a suspected planner of the plot killing him. The US also in 2004, following his sentence to death in Yemen, acquired Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri the local operational mastermind and holds him in custody.
9/11:
Mohammed Atta makes numerous trips into Prague to meet with an IIS agent who the Czechs expell thereafter. On July 21, 2001 a state controlled newspaper in Iraq, Al-Nasirya, makes vieled threats at the Pentagon, White House and World Trade Center. The State Department issues "worldwide caution" for US citizens regarding terrorist attacks expiring on September 22nd. In the first week of September the Bush Administration discusses the Taliban and regime change. September 9th, Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance is assassinated. The Events of 9/11/2001. On September 20, Uday Hussein predicts an extensive campaign against Afghanistan and implies a biological attack could be carried out soon. Later that night the Bush Doctrine is delivered. Late that September a series of advanced high level anthrax attacks occur throughout the United States. On October 7th, the United States and it's allies invade Afghanistan. 18 months later they remove Saddam Hussein from power.
And we all know the rest. Bali, Beslan, Denmark, France, London, Madrid and many smaller attention attacks. Attempts in Berlin, Britian, India and throughout the globe. Iranian proxy wars in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq.
The blame here is not on the Bush Administration, nor even the Clinton Administration. The entire West was to blame. We were stuck in the mindset of the past. When small groups of terrorists would hijack planes until they got their demands. We fit all terrorism into this mold, even if we had to force it and ignore the parts that spilled out. Even when there was clear state related work like Libya in the 80s, we ignored those lessons and went back to our old mold.
While it is true that the Clinton Administration wished to not suffer political fallout from having to engage the enemy. It is true that Clinton was haunted by Vietnam and didn't want to commit to any sort of military operation that put boots on the ground. So for eight years we tried to kick the war down the road, embolding the Islamists as they got progressively more daring (embassies and warships are the most daring terrorist attacks you can pull off...short of attacking the homeland itself...) and it is not a failure of any one man. Aside from a relative few we all missed the growing terror. After the contenous election of 2000, Bush was attempting to smooth out the differences, leaving many of the Clinton Administration at their posts, continuing many of Clinton's foreign and domestic policies as the administration set up. Early the administration was focused on working with Democrats in Congress and the Hainan Island incident. The 2000 election was completely untouched by the Cole bombing and was never a major issue. With both Bush and Gore stating they supported the Clinton Administration in handling the case.
The real question of 9/11 should not be looking at our failures and using them to assign blame. But instead looking at what we could learn from them. Instead of looking at the years before 9/11 and understanding how the threat was growing then, we look back a month before 9/11 and blame Bush for all Islamist terrorism. We shouldn't even look back eight years and blame Clinton however.
What we should do and did in the wake of 9/11 was determine what we would do to combat the Islamist threat. Regardless of how he adheared to it, Bush gave us the Bush Doctrine which presented a policy of eliminating the terrorists and the states that support them. An indirect acceptance of the already declared war by Islamist forces.
A "political debate" is necessary in any "rememberance" of 9/11 for it is not an event that just happened and that's it. It is an event that must spur what we will do to ensure the defeat of the Islamists. We have the Bush Doctrine and it's similars with those who want to destroy the Islamist threat on it's soil. We have those who acknowledge the Islamist threat but simply want to hide at home behind ineffective defenses that will eventually always be circumvented. (This includes those who want to return to the Clintonian policies. Kinda strengthen the home while also weakening it with "The Wall" and quashing investigations, have loads of irrelevant peace talks, reduce our power in the world, and most importantly
believing terrorists act without state support) And we also have those who deny the Islamist threat and want to weaken our defenses.
That's not counting the ones who we shouldn't speak of, who take up arms in various means against Western Liberalism on the side of the Islamists.
This is how we should remember 9/11, by determining what we're willing to do to prevent, or allow it again. Are we, is Western society, willing to do whatever it takes to defeat Islamism and defend our culture from the barbaric medieval one they're offering?
