Editor's Note: Better Than Before

[Bobic]

That was oddly beautiful, good show Russ.

I think this is way more of a thing for just Americans than Americans realise.

Like that awful speech in Independence Day. Talk about cringe - no amount of Will Smith can balance that out.

As for Bin Laden... eh. What it seems they've done is killed the guy who knew the most about all that was going on, but not the guy who was the single pin holding the entire cause together (because there isn't one). Not much of a victory.

Any victory that increases moral in a nations citizens and its troops, is a large victory. Moral is one of the main things you need to win wars. Its in the top 3, at least.

We'll have to disagree on that one. Any 'victory' that causes your citizens to act more like the people they're at war with is not a victory.

'He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster'. Oh Nietzsche, you come up with the most perfect phrases.

 

[John Funk]

I'd take issue with it, because I'm an American. The difference here is that you are directing hatred directly toward another group. "I'm glad a bunch of Americans died," is very different from, "We're glad they finally stopped this man."

You're not bin Laden, so you can't take it personally.

All right. Let's change "Americans" for George W. Bush, then. Happy now? Or would you like to turn me in to Homeland Security?

The point is why you find his death so significant. Either it's a politically significant death, and it's tasteless endorsement of assassination for the sake of political convenience. There's no practical result following this. There's not even a tenuous benefit for anyone apart from revenge. Or as some of you feel the need to state so loudly - and even demand empathy for - there's mostly just closure.

Or else you're personally invested in the narrative without understanding it's political significance. Which again is tasteless endorsement of killing.

In either case, it's tasteless.

Let's take a small roundabout look at this, though. How does the US set itself up for politically significant assassinations in the future, now that they prove how easily affected public opinion is when it comes to events like these? What does that signal when it comes to how the US will deal with international relations in the future? Obviously it's a red cloth to any crazy with an agenda out there. But hey - you're just personally gratified that the Witch is dead, and it's not like you're /demanding/ anyone to celebrate with you, is it.

Again - I'm having a hard time accepting the fact that anyone can seriously argue that they experience emotional relief at the death of another person. If, of course, Osama actually did live next door - or he was your aunt, etc. - then I could understand it. I could see how it would have hung over you.

But Osama doesn't live in your neighbourhood, now does he? He's on the opposite end of the world, and was killed by some marine who just is doing his job. Nothing heroic about pulling the trigger like that, and you sure as hell don't feel tough when you know you've fired a bullet that wounded and maybe killed someone else. Trust me on this.

So how do you rationalise it? Without direct personal involvement? That's disturbing on it's own, and contingent upon that political environment that cannot be spoken of.

But then to /celebrate/ it? Celebrate the emotional relief a random death causes, because that person is tied up so closely to your emotional state?

It's not like I can't sympathise with the pressure caused by the terrible political environment in the US lately. Nevertheless - it's a question of perspective. And it's a matter of personal choice involved with allowing yourself to end up hating a foreigner on the opposite end of the world that badly.

I refer to dastardly's argument; we're not glad he's DEAD per se, we're glad he's been stopped. Just like the world celebrated when GWBush left office and the Republicans lost the election, only significantly less deadly.

I'm really not following your conclusions on how we can't feel emotional relief because we didn't know him personally. For those who lived in New York and DC on 9/11 - and especially those who knew someone who died - it's a relief that you can't even imagine. I watched tower #2 fall from across the hudson river in New Jersey, and to this day I can't express those feelings in words.

I'm never going to argue that what the US has done in response to the 9/11 attack is a good thing, because it isn't. But at the same time, I'd thank you not to pass judgment when you were not one of those who were directly affected by the attacks.

 

[108Stitches]

I spent a good portion of my childhook living just outside of London during the 70s, so "terrorism" was not new to me, but it sure did seem different when it was against my own country. Perhaps those feelings were because at the time I was younger than I was in 2001. I did not have kids of my own.

The feelings I had, being a half a country away from my family when the word came out on what was going on are indescribeable. The 24 hour car journey across the vast wastelands of the US can only be explained as surreal. The talk on AM radio ran the gambit from consipracy theorist stating the government had spearheaded the attacks themselves to truckers ready to take up arms right then!

I was more concerned about the world my two young children would now be forced to live in.

I find it amusing that on these boards it's constantly pointed out that "America" brought it upon themselves. The only frames of reference that are mentioned are all of the negatives. Nobody mentioned the $9B worth of aid that Bush sent to Africa, which was not $9B worth of GUNS and VIOLENCE but rather FOOD, SHELTER, EDUCATION, MEDICINE and other social needs. Not to mention the aid provided to all of the other countries and communities around the globe. Its all about the NEGATIVE. All about how 'big bad big brother' is beating me up again.

Perhaps it IS time for the US to go back to it's pre-WWII thinking and not give a rats ass about what is going outside of it's own borders. Secure those borders and tell everyone else to just piss off since they are not AMERICAN.

 

[StrixMaxima]

I find it amusing that on these boards it's constantly pointed out that "America" brought it upon themselves. The only frames of reference that are mentioned are all of the negatives. Nobody mentioned the $9B worth of aid that Bush sent to Africa, which was not $9B worth of GUNS and VIOLENCE but rather FOOD, SHELTER, EDUCATION, MEDICINE and other social needs. Not to mention the aid provided to all of the other countries and communities around the globe. Its all about the NEGATIVE. All about how 'big bad big brother' is beating me up again.

Perhaps it IS time for the US to go back to it's pre-WWII thinking and not give a rats ass about what is going outside of it's own borders. Secure those borders and tell everyone else to just piss off since they are not AMERICAN.

You cannot be serious. The US has given relief money to Africa and other underdeveloped/under crisis areas, but that's just a drop in the bucket. American policies for Africa are invisible at best, ruthless at worst. American companies (especially oil ones) have caused untold misery, death, dissent and poverty to huge swaths of African territory. A little research will show just how much the "free market" US policies have contributed to keep the already poor completely forgotten and powerless.

Americans are incredibly defensive when these issues are brought to light, because it is a horrid heritage that it is historical: proven by facts, documents and testimonies. You name it: support for South and Central American petty dictators, suppression of freedom or social movements around the globe (too numerous to comment: Cuba, Philippines, all over Africa, Middle East, etc, etc), establishment of commodity slaves (from which they bought commodities for peanuts and sold industrialized products, thus damaging the industrialization efforts in several areas), interventionist policies, indiscriminate weaponry trade, etc, etc. The list is very, very long.

Of course, the man on the street is not (usually) to blame. It is a bigger, governmental issue. But it lead, during the decades, to the extremely poor view many areas have of the US and its inhabitants. These seeds are constantly sprouting, and religious zealotry in the Middle East is just one facet of the problem.

Let's not be naïve, then. The US is not the ultimate "bad guy", but it is suffering now from years and years of wrong decisions and a greedy financial policy. It's Karma biting, and these poor souls in the Twin Towers and the streets of Kabul, American and Afghan, are paying the price for that.

 

[RA92]

Editor's Note: Better Than Before

Russ Pitts puts games aside for a moment to take stock of a momentous event: the death of Osama Bin Laden.

What's annoying is how a lot of people are just scoffing at Pitts' piece as a fluff. He's lamenting not only about the tragedy that was the 9/11 attack, but how it fundamentally changed America. Americans are probably never going to get back there country where things like The Patriot Act doesn't exist.

To go a bit further, even, the victory is that bin Laden has been stopped. The fact that he was killed is as unfortunate as any death, no matter how necessary it may have been. Death isn't what we're celebrating.

We're celebrating that he was stopped, not how he was stopped.

The problem is, Laden was never really a major threat post 9/11. Even now, Laden's Taliban has, according to estimates, around 600 operatives who have been unable to carry out major operations recently because they are constantly on the run. Killing Laden will not stop the thousands of splinter groups around the world spawned by his ideology.

And one can be happy that the man is dead and not approve of the changes that happened over the ten years as a result of the hunt.

Also, for people who lost a friend or family member in the Sept. 11 attacks, this is important closure. It may be nothing more than symbolism, but symbolism is sometimes important.

At the same time I feel inclined to point out that during at least two separate occasions the American government had the chance to catch Bin Laden without dragging themselves to decade long wars.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/05/afghanistan.terrorism3
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Look at the latter case. Bush decided against the handover so that he wouldn't lose the excuse to continue his war in Afghanistan (and Iraq as well, before he started spinning the whole nuke story). This symbolism might mean something to you, but it doesn't to the government. They'll be just using it to garner popular support.

 

[Sartan0]

This conversation has value because it reminds Americans that there are other points of view out there. Some of those views I can't get behind but I value the chance to hear them.

I make an effort to get news from non-US sources because that has similar value. I will as an American of a certain age (Old enough to remember things well before 9/11) not take back my feelings of relief at OBL's death, however.

 

[JDKJ]

I think this is way more of a thing for just Americans than Americans realise.

Like that awful speech in Independence Day. Talk about cringe - no amount of Will Smith can balance that out.

As for Bin Laden... eh. What it seems they've done is killed the guy who knew the most about all that was going on, but not the guy who was the single pin holding the entire cause together (because there isn't one). Not much of a victory.

Any victory that increases moral in a nations citizens and its troops, is a large victory. Moral is one of the main things you need to win wars. Its in the top 3, at least.

Did you intend to type "moral" or "morale?" I suspect you intended "morale." But I like what you have to say more if it's "moral." "Moral" makes for a much better truth than "morale."

 

[Russ Pitts]

I'm not going to comment further on this thread but to say that it was not my intention to spur a political debate, nor to express anything other than my emotional state as relates to the news of the day. Obviously the politics of America generate a lot of frustration and confusion both here and abroad. This article, however, is not about that. It is about how I am genuinely hopeful that this news may signal a beginning to the long, dark night that has gripped the soul of this nation. For better or worse, I am an American. I do not believe my feelings, as an American, invalidate any that anyone else may have. It was only my wish to share them with you. Take them how you will.

 

[nipsen]

But at the same time, I'd thank you not to pass judgment when you were not one of those who were directly affected by the attacks.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of the whistling in my inner ear right now.

Does it matter..? So he's been "stopped". Ok. Fine. What does it mean? It means emotional relief for you. Apparently, it's because now you are not afraid any longer of being terrifically attacked by the bogeyman. Or it's closure, in the sense that a chapter in the book of scare-politics comes to an end.

And that's all of it.

..I mean, it's not even hedonism, is it? I could maybe have respected that.

 

[John Funk]

But at the same time, I'd thank you not to pass judgment when you were not one of those who were directly affected by the attacks.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of the whistling in my inner ear right now.

Does it matter..? So he's been "stopped". Ok. Fine. What does it mean? It means emotional relief for you. Apparently, it's because now you are not afraid any longer of being terrifically attacked by the bogeyman. Or it's closure, in the sense that a chapter in the book of scare-politics comes to an end.

And that's all of it.

..I mean, it's not even hedonism, is it? I could maybe have respected that.

If you can't discuss and debate in a polite matter, you will not be debating anything on our forums at all. Just a warning.

It means emotional relief for me and for the 20% of Americans who knew someone who died on 9/11. It's closure, and once more I'm going to say that you cannot understand this because you were not personally affected by the attack. And you know what? That's okay that you cannot understand it because you weren't personally affected; that's only human. What's not okay is passing judgment on people because of it.

Osama was not in operational command of Al-Qaeda for a very long time, but he was an inspirational figurehead for many. He killed thousands, not just Americans but of people of many nationalities and faiths around the world. Him not being around to cause hatred, death and fear is a very good thing.

 

[Soylent Dave]

I don't mean to sound like an utter prick BUT the WORLD did not awaken to that threat, America did. The rest of the world, my country included, have suffered at the hands of these organizations for a very long time.

I make no attempt to downplay the scale of 9/11, I DO resent the implication that until it happened to America it wasn't happening.

Also from England. Think I understand what you're getting at but the attack on WTC was on a grander scale than anything we witnessed (I think - I may have been too young for the whole IRA fiasco).

Clearly you are too young. The IRA bombed Canary Wharf (which is a comparable target to the WTC) as well as firing a mortar at Downing Street and also successfully blowing up the Cabinet in Brighton; not to mention the scores of attacks all over the country (including one that ripped the heart out of my own city, and injured people I knew).

To hear American politicians (other talking heads), after 9/11, saying things like 'all terrorists are Muslims' was sickening (both in its racism and in its presumption that terrorism was invented in 2001) - particularly when you bear in mind that the terrorists I suffered attacks from were Catholic.

-

What the world (or at least I) was awakened to 10 years ago - and like captainfluoxetine I'm not trying to be a dick here - is how terrified America and Americans seem to be, all the time.

At least, I thought I'd been awakened to it - but to see things like what Russ has written (and he's far from the only American expressing this sentiment); the idea that your nation suffers a single terrorist attack, and you've all lived in fear (apparently of one man) for a decade... really is unimaginable.

(I know the British are regarded as a bit 'odd' in the way we deal with tragedy (have a cup of tea, don't talk about it, don't show your feelings, move on) - but it's rare that I have it rammed so much in my face how different Americans are)

 

[cgaWolf]

(...) yes there was a lot of power from that man and possible more terror, but why not judge him? why not to put him under law instead of just killing him?

(Not trying to flame just posting my opinion.)

To be honest, because it's a can of worms.

Flying into a sovereign country and kidnapping someone, even to put him on trial, is arguably not the most legal thing to do. There are differences however: if he's captured, where do you put him on trial? Who has jurisdiction? Who has an interest in appointing oneself a target for holding the trial, or participating in it? To expose his citizens to retaliation (on top of the possibility of terrorism they alreadty face)?

Someone over at foreignpolicy.com (interesting site btw) mentioned that when Saddam Hussein was caught, he was put on trial by the Iraqi People/Government - they had a reason (lots of reasons really) to want him to face the trial, and it did contribute to the nationbuilding exercise there.... Who would want to do that with bin Laden? The Pakistanis certainly want nothing to do with it (and are kind of busy with internal strife), Afghanistan more closely ressembles Mad max than anything else, and the US judicial process can't even figure out how to deal with dozens of Gitmo inmates.

He's dead & gone, and suddenly all those questions become irrelevant.

There will be fallout, but it's not like terrorists would have stopped anytime soon, or that they would be appeased by bin Laden being put in front of a jury (plus: appeasement "is feeding the dragon in hopes he'll eat you last" (W. Churchill)).

The question wether it was the legal thing to do, is one people a lot smarter for us will be discussing for quite some time. As of now, the world doesn't have a legal concept of "war on terror", or any assymetrical military engagement of a nation against a non-localized, non-national, fluous entity/network. Legally, we only know war (between nations) and civil war.

Whether it was the right thing to do, is something people will have to answer for themselves. I personally think it was the smart thing to do, and that there wasn't a lot of choice in first place.

 

[JDKJ]

You can write good articles from time to time, but to assume you can take the mantle of writing Hunter S Thompson style personal essays about the state of America and the world and not come off as somewhat pretentious strikes me as an overestimation of your position.

If you're attempting to write like Hunter S. Thompson and you aren't zonked on an assortment of mind-bending substances while doing so, you're wasting your time. You'll never capture the essence of Thompson.

 

[JDKJ]

If you're attempting to write like Hunter S. Thompson and you aren't zonked on an assortment of mind-bending substances while doing so, you're wasting your time. You'll never capture the essence of Thompson.

I have it on good authority that all the members of the Escapist writing staff drop 500 mikes of sunshine blotter acid before the beginning of each business day.

Russ Pitts most of all.

The last time I did that . . . . Never mind. I can't remember that far back in time.

 

[Irridium]

I think this is way more of a thing for just Americans than Americans realise.

Like that awful speech in Independence Day. Talk about cringe - no amount of Will Smith can balance that out.

As for Bin Laden... eh. What it seems they've done is killed the guy who knew the most about all that was going on, but not the guy who was the single pin holding the entire cause together (because there isn't one). Not much of a victory.

Any victory that increases moral in a nations citizens and its troops, is a large victory. Moral is one of the main things you need to win wars. Its in the top 3, at least.

Did you intend to type "moral" or "morale?" I suspect you intended "morale." But I like what you have to say more if it's "moral." "Moral" makes for a much better truth than "morale."

Fuck. Yeah I mean "morale". Ah well, guess you could use "moral" as well.

 

[JDKJ]

I think this is way more of a thing for just Americans than Americans realise.

Like that awful speech in Independence Day. Talk about cringe - no amount of Will Smith can balance that out.

As for Bin Laden... eh. What it seems they've done is killed the guy who knew the most about all that was going on, but not the guy who was the single pin holding the entire cause together (because there isn't one). Not much of a victory.

Any victory that increases moral in a nations citizens and its troops, is a large victory. Moral is one of the main things you need to win wars. Its in the top 3, at least.

Did you intend to type "moral" or "morale?" I suspect you intended "morale." But I like what you have to say more if it's "moral." "Moral" makes for a much better truth than "morale."

Fuck. Yeah I mean "morale". Ah well, guess you could use "moral" as well.

As I said, I prefer "moral." There's a subtle but important difference.

 

[Sikachu]

"Past the days on end spent obsessively watching news in order to make some sense of this tragedy. Past the appearance of soldiers armed with automatic weapons in America's airports. Past the creation of an agency that, in practice, exerts more terror on the daily lives of Americans than Bin Laden ever could. Past the re-election of one of the most controversial presidents in our history. Past two wars fought seemingly without end."

"I know the fighting all over the world will continue. I know that our government's near-treasonous overreaction to the threats will not immediately cease."

Yeah, that's really a puff-piece of pro-American propaganda, gee whiz.

It's certainly no puff piece when you pluck pieces out of context. On the other hand, if you read those things before the conciliatory closing:

"But last night, for the first night in a decade, I felt as if we had finally stopped falling. Now it's time to start picking ourselves back up."

you notice that it reads as though with the murder of an untried man all that's been done wrong is okay now because Americans have got closure. Perhaps it isn't me that should be patronised about reading the whole piece.

 

[Dastardly]

The problem is, Laden was never really a major threat post 9/11. Even now, Laden's Taliban has, according to estimates, around 600 operatives who have been unable to carry out major operations recently because they are constantly on the run. Killing Laden will not stop the thousands of splinter groups around the world spawned by his ideology.

And rebuilding my house after a hurricane won't stop hurricanes. But it still feels good, and it allows me to feel that I've reclaimed some semblance of control and balance in my life.