Let’s Get Back to a 9/10 Mentality

Friday, September 11th, 2009

What Will Wilkinson said.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

23 Responses to “Let’s Get Back to a 9/10 Mentality”

  1. #1 |  Tim C | 

    Give me a break. Going back to 9/10 = evasion on a grand scale. I get the part about not letting our liberties be eroded and so forth (and thus granting the Islamists a victory), but really we need to get to a point that Bush tried to but didn’t have the philosophical grounding for – we must recognize the enemy, its philosophy, and defeat it utterly. Then we won’t return to a world of 9/10 (heads in the sand, happily pretending nothing is wrong), but a future, better world with one less group that thinks initiation of force is the proper way to deal with fellow men.

  2. #2 |  Dave W. | 

    When it finally comes out that Flight 93 was shot down we will move on. Hopefully this year.

  3. #3 |  Zargon | 

    While we’re at it, I’d also like a pony.

  4. #4 |  BamBam | 

    We should get back to a 9/10 mentality, but what year? I prefer 1853 or somewhere around there. Things have been far wrong in this country for over a century.

  5. #5 |  Will | 

    “we have met the enemy and he is us” Pogo

  6. #6 |  J sub D | 

    Does anyone think all of the restrictions on liberty, the phone taps, the plundered airline baggage, the restrictions on travel (A passport to cross the Detroit River? Give me a break.) are protecting us from terrorists?

    Really?

  7. #7 |  Frank | 

    Not gonna happen.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090911_Dave_Davies__Student_air_passenger_handcuffed_to_echoes_of_9_11_fears.html?viewAll=Y&text=#comments

  8. #8 |  chris | 

    Hey people,let’s never forget that ALBANY is the freakin capital of New York,not NYC. Enough already….

    CIII

  9. #9 |  Fluffy | 

    …we need to get to a point that Bush tried to but didn’t have the philosophical grounding for – we must recognize the enemy, its philosophy, and defeat it utterly.

    What you fail to realize is that we already had defeated it utterly.

    That’s why our enemies had no recourse other than to use terrorism.

    The battle between modernity and barbarism was won a long time ago. The United States, with its semi-free political and economic system, utterly outclasses the entire Islamic world in combination, mainly because the Islamic world went from being ruled by a set of decaying empires to being ruled as colonies to being ruled by socialist authoritarian states and/or theocracies. Since those forms of government and social organization suck, the Islamic states are weak, and the citizens of those states are perpetually humiliated by being reminded every day of that weakness.

    Why do you think they had to hijack airplanes? Because every other possible means of striking at or competing with the United States was closed to them.

    We should not have changed a single thing about our society following 9/11. We were winning, and they were losing. The people who wanted, and who still want, to change our society to make it more like theirs are morons.

  10. #10 |  Mag | 

    We’ve lost a lot to tie up our fears and imaginations in security.
    I am not certain the dead would appreciate all we have done to destroy our freedoms in their name.

  11. #11 |  djm | 

    Once we’ve securitized our society, supressed dissent, criminalized everyone, locked up every suspect, despised any religion that is not our own, affored immense powers to the state, enforced uniformity, set our class system in aspic, and nationalized the economy, we will be safe.

    Then finally we will have met the enemy.

  12. #12 |  matchmerk | 

    Ahhh….like most of the other libertarian blowhardy blogs, not any mention to remember the victims of that sad day, but just garbage spewed about the patriot act, the tsa, illegal wire taps, etc. This is why you’ll never be taken seriously.

  13. #13 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    I have one problem with the idea of returning to a 9/10 frame of mind; the second thing that ran through my mind when I saw the twin towers burning on TV was “Well, I’ve been expecting something like this for twenty years.”

    (The first thing was “This is taking architectural criticism a little far”, but then I always thought the Trade Center was butt-ugly)

    There have always been groups that preyed on civilized folks by the methods of terrorism. Time was when the civilized parts of the world put enough pressure on the uncivilized parts (such as the various countries of the middle east) that their governments made some real effort to keep the psychotics and thugs in line. In the aftermath of WWII that largely ceased, to be replaced by the kind of useless jabber that the UN embodies so well. It was simply a matter of time before some group of jumped-up banditos tried attacking the United States.

    I have no better answer than a general return to bad old Gunboat Diplomacy; make believable threats to the comfort and power of swine like the leaders of Iran, and back those threats up with force as required; “if you are the rulers of the territory you claim, then either keep your subjects from attacking civilized folk, or we will replace you with someone who will”.

    It is nasty and amoral, but it would work. It might even allow us the breathing room to come up with something better.

  14. #14 |  BamBam | 

    http://www.rwva.org

  15. #15 |  Mattocracy | 

    I will never forget what it felt like on 9/10. Back then, our government wasn’t destroying our freedoms to save our freedoms from the terrorists who wanted to destroy our freedoms. Back then, liberty was more important that security. Back then, the depressing irony of post 9/11 America was unthinkable.

  16. #16 |  Mattocracy | 

    @ 1

    “a future, better world with one less group that thinks initiation of force is the proper way to deal with fellow men.”

    …As if our war on terrorism isn’t the very initiation of force we hate the terrorists for committing. A lot of people have their heads in the sand about how our interventionist foreign policy inspires terrorists to hate America. We aren’t going to make them happy with more violent interventionist foreign policy. In that sense, we still haven’t taken our heads out of the sand.

  17. #17 |  The Johnny Appleseed Of Crack | 

    My mentality has never changed.

  18. #18 |  Dave W. | 

    An investigation of the Nick Berg tape would be another huge step to getting back.

  19. #19 |  Peter Ramins | 

    I think the ham-handed and authoritarian responses after 9/11 were an admission by those making them that they had no faith in the philosophy and ideals that make up a large part of the ‘American way of life.’

    I said it on another message board yesterday morning – while those responsible for the WTC atrocity are burning in whatever framing of hell one may accept, I hope they take some solace in the fact that they at least identified our internal enemies – those who don’t trust the Constitution or the bedrock of principle upon which this country was founded.

    I think this round, the terrorists definitely won. The United States clashed with an enemy with no real mailing address, an enemy who attacks not just with physical weapons (both ‘proper’ and makeshift), but with doubt – doubt for our very way of life, doubt for all the things we take for granted.

    How do you beat something like that? It’s certainly not by abandoning the principles of freedom and security-from-state that were working for 200 years prior.

    I think maybe you look at what policies and actions you have conducted outside your borders that may instill this level anger and hatred, and curtail them. There is no weakness in recognizing that some policies are unfair and stupid.

    And I think most importantly you look inside and realize that ruining ‘the grand experiment’ is on many levels much more heinous and reprehensible than anything that might have happened on a day in September in 2001. You have to look at every day since then and ask yourself if it matches your vision of America, of the founders’ vision of America.

  20. #20 |  Michael Chaney | 

    Sheriff Randy Shirley has finally come up with the woman that he claims was the target of the investigation that led to the death of Rev. Jonathan Ayers:

    http://www.wnegtv.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1540:police-qtargetq-identified&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=18

    Again, folks, take it with a grain of salt. They’ve been claiming for a week now that she exists, and there was *no* reason to hide her identity. Well, there is potentially one good reason: they were grooming her for her public appearance as the person who was with Ayers right before his death.

    I’m not saying that I know for sure that they’re making this up. What I am saying is that 1) we know it’s possible (look at the Kathryn Johnston case) and 2) they have a reason to make up a back story.

    I probably won’t be a 100% believer unless they can come up with unedited video linking her with Ayers, or multiple independent witnesses.

    In other news, one of the agents involved (the one who was maimed by Ayer’s car) is back on duty.

    I also found this interesting article:

    http://www.wnegtv.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1509:residents-react-to-shooting&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=18

    With this quote:

    Some said they didn’t have all the facts but others said they didn’t want to run into any trouble with the law because they voiced their opinions on television.

    Ah, self-censorship to avoid being the next Ayers.

    The mentality of these cops is pretty scary:

    “We’re still going to go out and do the job and do the war on drugs in each county,” said Bryant. “There’s a need in communities to get rid of the problem.”

    Drugs *are* a problem, and people really shouldn’t use them. But how many deaths have been caused in the area by drugs? Probably “none, ever”. On the other hand, we have an innocent man dead and police who are trying to get off scot-free for murder. I find that to be a lot scarier than drugs, and likely far more harmful to your community. Reading above, you have a community that’s afraid of their police, and rightly so. That’s just wrong.

    If you want to get rid of a “problem”, why not start with the problems on your police forces?

  21. #21 |  B | 

    Ahhh….like most of the other libertarian blowhardy blogs, not any mention to remember the victims of that sad day, but just garbage spewed about the patriot act, the tsa, illegal wire taps, etc. This is why you’ll never be taken seriously.

    Everyone dies.

    The fact that some people die prematurely, publicly, and in a statistically improbable fashion does not make it OK for their deaths to be held up as cover for reprehensible policy.

    Who is *really* dishonoring the dead here?

  22. #22 |  Windy | 

    Peter, it’s been going on longer than just since 9/11:
    http://bit.ly/wHqk0

  23. #23 |  Peter Ramins | 

    I’m familiar with the ‘bread and circuses’ idea, and yes – that’s been going on for a while.

    The problem’s root exists in each side-stepping of constitutional checks on playing with other peoples’ money, in my opinion.

    BUT THAT’S OK, BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE FACET OF OUR LIFE IS NOW CONSIDERED “INTERSTATE TRADE”.

    /rolleyes

Leave a Reply