10 years on: my thoughts on 9/11
I can't remember exactly when, on September 11, 2001, I first heard the words: "The world has changed for ever." But it was very soon after the attacks in New York and Washington, and I remember feeling sceptical: I have a deeply engrained distrust of such sweeping generalisations.
On that occasion, though, I was probably wrong to be sceptical. For many millions of people - in the US, of course, but also in Europe, in the Middle East, and in Afghanistan - the world did change as a result of what happened that day.
So what have we learned over the past decade?
First, that we understand far less than we should about what is going on in faraway places - and that we ignore them at our peril. Before 9/11, had you heard of al-Qaeda, or Osama bin Laden? How much did you know of what was happening in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia?
Second, that military might - even US military might - does not solve problems as easily as we might like to imagine. The Gulf War of 1991, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, was an anomaly: an easy victory that achieved its stated aim at relatively low cost.
Third, that "temporary" anti-terrorism measures have a funny habit of becoming permanent - as any air traveller has discovered.
Fourth, that we can learn to live with fear. Just as Londoners did during the IRA bombing campaigns of the 1970s, now New Yorkers, Madrile帽os, Parisians, residents of Mumbai and Delhi, Karachi and Islamabad, Kabul and Kandahar, have discovered that you can get on with your life even in the knowledge that a bomb may be about to explode at any moment.
It's true that since 9/11 - with the exception of the attacks at the Fort Hood military base in Texas in 2009 when 13 people were shot dead, allegedly by a Muslim American serviceman - there have been no further attacks in the US. But there have been several unsuccessful attempts, including by the so-called "underpants bomber", Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who allegedly tried to blow up a plane on its way to Detroit in December 2009, and the attempted bomb attack on Times Square in New York in May last year.
(Last night, US officials said they had received "specific, credible but unconfirmed threat information" relating to the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks this weekend. It was reported that at least three people - one believed to be a U.S. citizen - had flown to the U.S. last month, apparently from Afghanistan, planning to set off a car bomb.)
Ever since 9/11, Muslims living in non-Muslim countries have found themselves being regarded with suspicion and incomprehension. Islamophobia is just one of the new, and unlovely, words we have learnt, along with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, control orders, and assymetric warfare.
But perhaps there are dangers if we focus too much on 9/11: that we try to relate everything that has happened over the past decade to what happened on that terrible day - and that we fail to acknowledge the other profound changes that have been under way while we've been concentrating on potential suicide bombers.
As the former Foreign Secretary pointed out in an article this week, over the past 10 years, the combined GDP of Brazil, Russia, India, and China more than doubled, from 8.4 per cent of the global economy to 18.3 per cent.
It was also the decade when, in his words, internet access went global - from a third of a billion people in 2000 to more than two billion people today. And the US started to realise that it is no longer the undisputed global super-power that it once was.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if historians, when they look back on this first decade of the 21st century, devote at least as much space to those developments as to the aftermath of the attack on the Twin Towers.
Terrorism is sometimes described as the weapon of choice for those who have no other weapons. And perhaps the best news in this grim 10th anniversary year is that tens of thousands of young Arabs who a decade ago may well have felt they had no other weapons with which to press their demands have now discovered the power of mass street protest.
Over the past eight months, in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain (Libya, where they quickly took up arms, is in a slightly different category), angry and ignored young people have turned their backs on the nihilism of al-Qaeda ideology and have decided instead to confront their own leaders on their own streets. Their demands for democracy, freedom and choice couldn't be further from the vision of Osama bin Laden.
It doesn't mean that the threat of more terrorist attacks has gone away, and we still don't know whether their protests will eventually succeed - after all, overthrowing a hated dictator is not the same as building a better future - but at least they're not blowing up themselves, or us. For that, surely, we can be thankful.
Comment number 1.
At 9th Sep 2011, BluesBerry wrote:The world changed forever...or at least as far into the future as we could see. It became "us" vs "them", "over there" and "not over here".
The tragic events of September 11, 2001, which claimed many lives in the United States, have since given rise to an era of endless US/NATO-sponsored wars accompanied by economic chaos, rising poverty & financial manipulation.
We have seen a marked shift towards authoritarianism, the criminalization of justice and the development of a police states.
Most sadly of all, after these deadly ten years, no one seems able, or willing, to tell us what really transpired, or why the United States immediately blustered about more killing, more war, or why the United States started with Iraq when the evil-doers were supposedly Saudi Arabian, or other Arabs...
Shouldn't the truth, the whole truth, be the least requirement after these ten years and so many deaths?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 9th Sep 2011, BluesBerry wrote:Part 1.
In the decade since 9/11 over A MILLION people have lost their lives in the "war on terror". This term was first used by George W. Bush on September 16th, 2001, at Camp David. In the months following 9/11, Bush Administration launched a series of military and intelligence interventions worldwide. The first phase started with Operation Enduring Freedom, which began October 2001.
In January 2002, US began the lesser known Operation Enduring Freedom 鈥 Philippines. Objective: to destroy the Islamist terror groups Jemaah Islamiyah and the Abu Sayaf Group that had been co-ordinating terrorist operations throughout the Philippines and Indonesia.
In October 2002, the US military started African military operations from Djibouti, establishing Operation Enduring Freedom, Horn of Africa. Objective: to identify and destroy al-Qaeda affiliated Islamist terror cells within Ethiopia, Somalia, Chad and Niger. This operation was broadened to include Operation Enduring Freedom 鈥 Trans Sahara. Objective: to broaden scope to Central Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. This less-publicized war on terror in Africa has been fought mostly by US special forces - overshadowed by US military in Afghanistan, Iraq & Pakistan.
In March 2003, the US invaded Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This invasion's unintended consequence strengthened Iran鈥檚 influence in the region.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 9th Sep 2011, BluesBerry wrote:Part 2.
A decade after the Twin Towers attacks, the US continues to wage its imperialistic wars; so one might say, 9/11 open the door from the Horn of Africa and Yemen to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Officially, the global war on terror is now OVER. The Obama Administration has renamed it: The Overseas Contingency Operation.
In terms of blood, the wars have been costly for the US & NATO. In Iraq, the US and its allies lost almost 5,000 troops. More than 32,000 were wounded. In Afghanistan, where casualty rates have INCREASED 5-FOLD in five years, the US and its allies have lost almost 3,000 killed in action with a further 13,000 wounded.
While the British medical journal The Lancet suggests that a minimum of 655,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Similar studies suggest that approximately 4,000 Afghan civilians have died during Operation Enduring Freedom. The US Congressional Research Service, in its March 2011 report, states that the Overseas Contingency Operation has cost the US taxpayer $1.3 TRILLION 鈥 $130 billion/year since 9/11. At present, US military operations worldwide cost $4,000 PER SECOND. According to US Congressional estimates, the final bill will total $1.8 trillion.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 9th Sep 2011, Jesterc wrote:I find it interesting how so many British commentators refer to the terror experienced by Londoners in the 70s
"that we can learn to live with fear. Just as Londoners did during the IRA bombing campaigns of the 1970s"
yet fail to mention the terrorism lived through by those in N. Ireland - where it really was a feature of everyday life - and for some still is. The UK still seems to be more concerned about terrorism on far away shores, and still largely ignoring what happened in Northern Ireland. Let's not even mention the US view on those Irish Freedom Fighters and compare this with their "war on terrorism"
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 9th Sep 2011, ghostofsichuan wrote:NYC is a media capital and therefore events are magnified there. Many people die in many places..the event was horrific but the costs have been great in response...in real terms the bankers have done much more damage but efforts to restrain them have been lacking. To track down terrorist we have all lost our privacy and once governments start listening to calls and reading electronic communications, supposedly to protect us it is never reversed and this will be the lasting impact of 9/11. The other impact has been the Arab Spring and rejection of the establishment of theocratic and oppressive states in the Arab world. Terrorist too are subject to unintended consequences.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 10th Sep 2011, dceilar wrote:Al Jazeera has a good video of the mainstream media's response to 9/11 and its performance in the decade. It more or less confirms our suspicions - it's not just the politicans and 'intelligence' services that are to blame for the West's bloodlust for international violence following 9/11 - the media are the worst to blame.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 10th Sep 2011, dceilar wrote:Noam Chomsky's thoughts on 9/11 ten years on is also a valuable read:
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 12th Sep 2011, John_from_Hendon wrote:Didn't see you at your old University's 50th Anniversary on Saturday 10th.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 12th Sep 2011, BluesBerry wrote:Part 1.
I don't how else to comment on this, as in where exactly to place my thoughts, but I know that this topic is more important than any current revolution or 9/11.
There is desperately needed a UN Resolution against the United States to stop them from using the banned weapon of mass destruction called HAARP. The United States not only possesses HARP; the US is the only country on Earth that has used weapons of mass destruction.
During its recent history the U.S. possessed(es) four types of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons and now environmental weapons. The US has also used chemical, biological and depleted nuclear weapons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Right now, today the US possesses & is currently using another weapon of mass destruction 鈥 HAARP or High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is a weather weapon of mass destruction facility jointly funded by the US Air Force, the US Navy, the University of Alaska and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The US military installation HAARP operates on an Air Force owned site near Gakona, Alaska. HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction as it is a military facility that actively tests and deliberately manipulates the climate for the US Govt. It constitutes a weapon of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.
In the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book 鈥淏etween Two Ages鈥 that: 鈥淭echnology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised鈥 Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm. 鈥
Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of 鈥渦nconventional weapons鈥 using radio frequencies. He refers to 鈥渨eather war,鈥 indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already 鈥渕astered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s.鈥 These technologies make it 鈥減ossible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves].鈥
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 12th Sep 2011, BluesBerry wrote:Part 2.
A simulation study of future defense 鈥渟cenarios鈥 commissioned for the US Air Force calls for: 鈥淯S aerospace forces to 鈥榦wn the weather鈥 by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications.鈥 From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counter-space control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. The US government WILL pursue such a policy.
The High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory鈥檚 Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating 鈥渃ontrolled local modifications of the ionosphere鈥.
Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich-actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP-describes HAARP as: 鈥淎 super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere (upper layer of the atmosphere) by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything-living and dead.鈥
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 12th Sep 2011, BluesBerry wrote:Part 3.
HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP鈥檚 main objective is to 鈥渆xploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes.鈥 Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of 鈥渋nduced ionospheric modifications鈥 as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar.
The military implications is alarming. The ability of the HAARP / Spacelab/ rocket combination to deliver very large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is likely to be 鈥渟old鈥 to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer.
More alarming, HAARP has the ability of modifying the World鈥檚 electro-magnetic field. Entire national economies could potentially be destabilized through climatic manipulations. Take a good look at what has been happening in the US and around the World in just the past decade. The melting of the Glaciers in all probability is the result of the US environmental weapon of mass destruction. Motive? The untapped natural resources including natural gas and oil of Canada鈥檚 North. It would be financially impossible to mine or drill through thick glacier ice. Use HAARP to punch a hole in the ionosphere that protects the Earth from the harmful radiation of the Sun and the US creates the largest microwave oven to melt and defrost the glaciers. With all of the Glaciers being rapidly melted by the US, sea levels have proportionally risen and rain fall now causes frequent mass flooding of entire countries. Storms are all connected to the amount of precipitation in the air. A very high concentration of precipitation causes unheard of super storms and flooding in some areas of the World and record high temperatures and drought in other areas. See the obvious connection between the US weapon of mass destruction called HAARP and global warming, super storms, flooding and droughts?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 12th Sep 2011, BluesBerry wrote:Part 4.
There is concrete evidence available today that reveals that HAARP is being used to create earthquakes & massive flooding in foreign states as well as in the United States itself. Scientific data from HAARP鈥檚 own website gives all the evidence we need to prove that HAARP is at present FULLY OPERATIONAL. What this means is that HAARP is being used to selectively modify the climate of a targeted region with intent to destabilizing the target region鈥檚 national economy.
Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are already in crisis as a result of US policies including market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. It is important to understand the link between the economic, strategic and military processes of the US government. In the above context, climatic manipulations under the HAARP program (whether accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these changes by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure and potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast areas.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 12th Sep 2011, BluesBerry wrote:Part5.
National governments and the United Nations must now insist that the use of HAARP by any nation (including the United States) be banned. Wait a minute, HAARP is already banned 鈥 The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) is an international treaty prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. It opened for signature on 18 May 1977 in Geneva and entered into force on 5 October 1978. The Convention bans weather warfare, which is the use of weather modification techniques for the purposes of inducing damage or destruction. Now what? National governments must insist that the UN enforce the ban by passing a resolution for the United States government and every government that has a HAARP weapon to dismantle their HAARP WMD. If the United States refuses to comply with the UN resolution the UN can authorize the use of force to destroy the United States鈥 HAARP installations.
If nothing is done to destroy all HAARP installations, including the United States... what will become of our little blue planet? There is no WMD greater, more damaging than HAARP.
Until a UN resolution is passed, that will demand that the United States government cease all HAARP activities and immediately begin to dismantle all HAARP installation, what can we do to stop the US government鈥檚 usage of this weapon of mass destruction? Every farmer around the World (including farmers from the US and Canada now affected by HAARP flooding) can start by suing the United States government for damages caused by HAARP to their crops and their livelihood. Every government of the regions affected by a HAARP WMD attack, either in the form of an earthquake, severe drought or flooding can initiate legal action which will bring the truth (we hope) before some international court. If the United States government ignores the law suits then the international community can force them to stop using HAARP with a total ban of US made goods and services. It isn't too late, but who will take up the cause? Will 大象传媒 take up the cause?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 13th Sep 2011, Jan_Keeskop wrote:BluesBerry:
Given the US veto, how could such a binding UN Security Council resolution be adopted? Or is your point that a non-binding UN General Assembly resolution on HAARP is what would be desperately needed?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)