I'm sorry for being callous, but damn, let's agree to prioritize...
Let us please learn to put things into perspective so that we can avoid the true tragedies which you described:
- two prolonged wars
- trillions(!) of dollars spent
- countless civilians being injured or killed in war
- a loss of civil liberties
- possibly hundreds tortured in the name of fighting terrorism
Those tragedies were not caused by 9/11. They were caused by our perception of how terrible 9/11 was. In reality, the 3,000 lost lives pales in comparison to the bone-chilling list you assembled.
Also, this has been stated multiple times, but 9/11 wasn't about killing 3,000 people, it was about attacking America as a whole, making people feel that they weren't safe in their own country. Surely you don't feel that way just by knowing that 150,000 humans die of random causes each day.
This is major speculation, but what do you think would've happened if the fourth plane reached the White House/Capitol Building ?
They aren't safe in their own country. Huge numbers of them die prematurely of random causes every month.
Surely you don't feel that way just by knowing that 150,000 humans die of random causes each day.
I look both ways when I cross the street. I don't check my car for bombs every morning. That should tell you something about which I fear more.
Disclaimer: IANAA (I Am Not An American). Perhaps they feel differently than I do.
> They aren't safe in their own country. Huge numbers of them
> die prematurely of random causes every month.
The following also contributed:
- The attack was perpetrated by Muslims against a predominantly Christian country. Especially a country with a lot of 'born-again'/Evangelical Christians that are rabidly religious. This helps to form a "Us vs. Them" mentality as well as a "They are attacking our way of life; our very identity." I have a strong feeling that the reaction would be less severe (though maybe not by much) if it had been perpetrated by members of another religion (or at least people that didn't use their religion as a reason for their actions).
- The attack was perpetrated by a group. A group that has members that are still 'at large.' (i.e. "It could/will happen again.") By contrast, the Oklahoma City Bombing was easy to dismiss as some random crazy guy.
- It came from outside of the country. If the attack had been from a group that was based in the US (i.e. some political group that resorted to terrorism), then the reaction probably wouldn't have been so severe. It's easier for form an "Us vs Them" mentality when there is a greater distinction between "us" and "them." If the people behind the attacks were Americans, people would still be outraged, but it would be a hell of a lot easier for them to picture those people as just 'crazies.' I think that a number of people also view Arabs/Muslims as 'below' them (i.e. "a bunch of rag-heads living out in the middle of god-forsaken desert") even if they consider themselves to be more enlightened than that.
That can be said for every country. Not every country is a target of a terrorist attack though.
I look both ways when I cross the street.
If you don't look, there is a higher probability of being hit by a car. Therefore, you're trying to control the probability of being hit by a car. You can't do that in regards to a terrorist attack.
I don't check my car for bombs every morning.
Of course not. A bomb on your car would be an attack directly towards you, and you know there is a low probability of that happening.
You weren't directly affected by 9/11, but many people were (or by the London and Madrid bombings, for instance). Of course people are also affected when someone close to them dies prematurely, but as pyre already replied to you, people accept those random causes better than they do accept a terrorist attack.
Indeed, but you face life in prison for intentionally killing someone.
There is a big, big difference between the two
Rather it's recognized that if the perpetrators had the chance they would probably have killed 30 thousand, or 3 million. So the public justification for the "War on Terror" has been to prevent similar future events.
See e.g. this interview with Tony Blair where he makes that exact point:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-14-2010/excl...
For what it's worth, I know exactly what you mean by "burnt out googing". It's the feeling you get when you wish other people loved to talk about how to solve random problems as much as you love to talk about solutions to random problems. It's the lack of human-to-human interaction to accomplish a shared goal. It's the sour taste in your mouth from realizing just how little thinking most people you're forced to interact with actually do, and consequently conclude that most people don't care about being stupid. And since most results of most google searches result in wading through wave after wave of stupidity, sometimes your brain says enough and forces you to actually talk with someone who will hopefully make the whole process just a little bit enjoyable.
I have personally felt "burnt out googling", just like you.)
<off-topic>
I've tried Quora and Vark. But until I'm able to ctrl-t and type a question into a chrome-like omni-bar those Q&A sites will be a last resort
</off-topic>
tl;dr Don't attack people personally, and don't try to make an emotional appeal to win an argument. Those tactics might work for some people, but they sully the debate/discussion so far as I'm concerned.
Nihilism is the rejection of meaning, and if you can't see that the 9/11 attacks had meaning well beyond the death toll, both to the attackers and the victims - and I'm not talking about the reactions to the event - then you're a nihilist. It was an unprecedented military-style mass murder of civilians by organized, motivated enemies who also had their own set of beliefs. They weren't just some guys who randomly decided to fly two aircraft into downtown Manhattan. It wasn't a human mistake. And it wasn't an earthquake that killed a lot of people.