 |
BROOKLYN COLLEGE In memoriam 9/11 and its Aftermath |
|
WTC ONLINE FORUM THREE 11/18/01-12/01/01 |
|
DID WE WIN ALREADY?
|
|
BROOKLYN COLLEGE In memoriam 9/11 and its Aftermath |
|
WTC ONLINE FORUM THREE 11/18/01-12/01/01 |
|
"Hey, we won, right? So why aren't we celebrating?" from Chris Toulouse (02:06:11 11/18/01) The Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been routed, and whatever the complexion of the government that emerges in Kabul, it seems unlikely that the terrorist network Al Qaeda will find a home there in future.
Two questions:
(1) Since most Afghans welcomed the demise of the Taliban as a liberation, and the US won the war (the third war in a decade won by the US air power), why aren't we celebrating?
(2) Now that we've got rid of the Taliban, should we go after Saddam Hussein next?
"Too early to celebrate" from Mira Green (13:26:40 11/18/01) We can't celebrate yet because our main objective was to eliminate Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. We cant rest until all of the terrorist cells all over the world are liquidated. Going after Saddam Hussein isn't very good idea. Many Islamic countries that are in a US-lead coalition would not be happy with the USA attacking another Arab country without solid proof that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were somehow involved in the Sept.11 bombing. If those countries left the coalition and stop giving us support, it will be very hard to weed out the terrorists cells around the world.
"Bin Laden's Head on a plate" from La-Faye Williams (11:24:19 11/20/01) Yeah we may have won, but we are not satisfied because we do not have Bin Laden. I think if we actually had him and all the people that helped him we would feel satisfied and then we can celebrate. With Bin Laden still out there who is to say what he is planning next, with all the holidays coming up and people with there guards down this would be the perfect time for him to try something else. As far as Saddam Hussein, I think would should get him also, honestly we should have killed him when we had the chance.
"Did we really win?" from Mojgan Basiratmand (07:00:35 11/23/01) What are we calling success regarding bombing Afghanistan? Initial intentions of bombing Afghanistan were to get rid of Osama Bin Laden and now the big question is if he is dead?? Plus, did we end terrorism? Did we really win? What do you call winning, killing innocent people some of which I bet don't even know what is going on in the world and suddenly one day they wake up and they see bombs are raining on them? And my other question is if Osama was hiding in US, would our government bomb the whole country to get rid of him?
"Yeah, Did we really win?" from Monifah Brathwaite (18:11:51 11/24/01) If America honestly believe that we have won this so called war on terrorism, they are fooling themselves. There will always be people that are ready to terrorize America. It is unfortunate but true. I also believe that America's main reason for going into Afghanistan was to show how superior we think we are, meaning no one can touch us and get away with it.
"Win what?" from Trining Liggins (08:37:17 11/25/01) Of course we won, we are the United States! We are the United States who are fighting a one man war. How can they call this war if America is the only one fighting? So then I guess we are the winners because there is no one fighting back. That isn't something to be proud of. America should feel ashamed for bombing a country for over a month who already had nothing leaving them with more of nothing. It makes no sense. I didn't agree with the war because I knew the outcome would not lead too the answers that the American people wanted. Face it, terrorism will never be abolished. The hate will never cease, and we will never all just get along. The war on terrorism was really George W. feeling the pressure of the American people and forced to come up with a solution. If it really was a war on terrorism then we would be bombing all over the world including on our own soil because these terrorists that attacked us lived here in the US for years. We gave them a place to live, to work, to raise families, they were using us better than we know how to use ourselves. Bombing Afghanistan only did what the people of Afghanistan were scared to do, fight against the Taliban. The people who really won were the Afghans. The US still has nothing.
"The Propaganda War: Is it worth fighting?" from Chris Toulouse (02:05:08 11/18/01) Is this a war that can be won by military means alone? Does it make sense for the US government to spend more money on foreign aid to alleviate poverty in the developing world, and to counter the vicious anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda on the Arabic satellite TV station Al Jezeera?
OR is there only so much we can do about poverty, which is more a problem of corrupt governments that can't or wont do what they know they need to, and only so much we can do about hatred of America, which is mostly religiously and politically-inspired and therefore only marginally amenable to reason?
"How Can We Drop Food and Bombs At The Same Time?" from Paul Bajohr (14:50:21 11/18/01) The United States' relief efforts in Afghanistan seem to be carrying out less progress than their bombing campaigns on Taliban strongholds. The food drops to those who oppose the Taliban are not 100% beneficial to those who are in need. Firstly, there have been reports of the Taliban taking the food drops, poisoning them and then redistributing them to the needy. Then the United States changed the color of the supply bags because they were being confused with mine apparatus. It seems to me that these relief efforts are a facade for the horrible bombing that is killing many innocent people. I strongly support the air strikes, however, I disagree with the food drops because it makes the United States look very hypocritical in their actions and words.
"Food and Bombs Save Lives" from Allison Goodman (15:56:34 11/23/01) I don't believe the United States is hypocritical when it drops food as well as bombs. As President Bush has pointed out, we are not at war with Islam or the people of Afghanistan. We are at war with a dictatorial government that was not elected by the people of Afghanistan. They have caused great hardship and death to their own nation. Therefore, it is right to help the people, but not their government. The citizens of Afghanistan are the innocent victims of religious fanatics and deserve our help. They are entitled to live their life in a secure manner. It is hypocritical to destroy the Taliban without saving the people.
"Are we aware of anything that goes on beyond our boroughs or our borders?" from Sharon Bernard (00:22:10 11/22/01) From the responses, it is amazing how offended we are about the food being distributed to the Afghan people. These bombs we are dropping cost a whole lot of money. But, of course, we are being very careful not to kill the starving innocents. After we bomb them, we drop packets of food in case they are not dead. Should we wipe the people of Afghanistan off the face of the earth so we can feel safe? The women and the children? How about maybe only the men? They seem to be the main problem. Should we send every foreigner, no, let's call them what they are, "immigrants", back to their country so that we can feel safe again? How about if we make it retroactive... say a forty years or so? History tells us that the US gets passionate about places and things in which they are economically interested. There is a certain oil pipeline they want to run through Afghanistan, but there is a little problem: the Taliban and Bin Laden. They trained him, they armed him and then he turned against them. Not only that, he hit us in our OWN backyard. How dare he! A few embassies in other countries, we don't mind, but here?! China has the worst human rights record, but it is now of an economic interest, so we don't have to make a big issue of a few tortured and dismembered prisoners, do we?
I think the USA should review its foreign policies. We should ensure that some of our students get to spend a semester in some of these countries so they get more than a media view of what life is like beyond their borders. We should also look at "teaching the Afghan people and other underdeveloped countries how to fish", not feed them. Is there developed technology on how to grow things in the desert? Is there any way we can capitalize on solar energy in Afghanistan and other countries like that? There are African countries with similar drought problems. Global economy should mean more than one getting over by standing on the other one's back - exploitation. It should mean cooperation. If we as a people continue to peep from between our fingers we will have another surprise like WTC. The world is bigger than the United States. There are other people out there. The enemy is not just people in other countries.
"Maybe we are aware of what goes beyond..." from Nina Liberova (16:47:48 11/28/01) Sharon, I don't mean to be disrespectful about your opinion but what good will it do for our children to be send away to a place like Afghanistan, where women treated like slaves, where there is no education, where men behave like barbarians and there is nothing to see but poverty and uncivilized way of living. Do you honestly think that they want to be taught otherwise? Maybe some of them, but look at what's happening in Israel. Instead of helping to build a country, they ruin it. They envy those who built new buildings, diners, parks; they despise them for converting Israel into a beautiful and growing country. And think of those families who lost their loved ones, believe me they want revenge and it's fair. Do you think they thought about THOUSANDS of innocent people who were torturously killed in 9/11 attack? We cannot 'forgive but not forget,' and if there was a chance for US to improve and teach those people something, most of them would reject that offer. Although I agree with what you said about US helping Afghanistan but they never expected that they would repay back this way. You see, it all depends on who you are helping: we help one country and they become our allies, we help another and they start a war against us.
"FBI = Federal Bungling and Incompetence" from Chris Toulouse (02:03:23 11/18/01) How competently has the Federal government handled the domestic side of the terrorist crisis? The last couple of weeks have brought unexpected success abroad (with the collapse of the Taliban and the endurance of the international coalition) but apparently little progress in reassuring the American public about airline safety or the safety of the US Mail. Why can't the Feds get airline security sorted out and catch whoever is mailing out anthrax?
"FBI- Not So Bad " from Linda Balacky (18:02:43 11/18/01) Give these guys a break. Perhaps the FBI has handled the domestic terrorism superbly. Think about it. There was supposed to have been several other incidents that were highlighted "red alert days", and nothing out of the ordinary happened on these dates. Isn't is possible that the FBI managed to contain the situation so well that the planned terrorism couldn't get off the ground? I don't know. I grew up believing that the FBI kept their plans under their hats as "privileged information". I am almost sure that what we are told is made public WHEN they feel we should know it and on a very selective basis of WHAT WE SHOULD KNOW.
"What do you expect?" from Prashant Somashekar (10:11:08 11/19/01) For the longest time, we didn't expect to be hit on our soil, much less have to face planes that can be turned in to bombs, or mail giving way to disease. This is a new way of living for us. I'm sure in time, we will be situated in this new mentality. Under the circumstances, I think the efforts underway are going well (or as well as expected). I hope by the time we get situated to this new way of living, it won't be too late before something else happens to us.
"What happened to our national security" from Dimitry Radomislsky (18:56:52 11/25/01) A major cause for the failure in preventing September 11th were the restrictive guidelines given by the government to our intelligence. Our laws were based on the main principles of country such as freedom and democracy limited the FBI and the CIA like any other government structure. These laws were designed to protect our privacy, instead of protecting us. We felt confident. The threat of cold war was over. Who would dare to mess with us anyway? Unlike the Israeli Mossad or the KGB our FBI was restricted from bribing and recruiting spies, tapping phone conversation. These laws had to be changed after declaring a war on terrorism. Now when the hands of the FBI are untied we can feel safer.
"Up in the air or Down on Land?" from La-Faye Williams (11:28:46 11/20/01) With all the recent tragedies with our airlines, will we be flying this holiday season or staying on land?
"Why not fly?" from Jacob Gross (15:24:17 11/20/01) If I needed to go some were I would not be afraid to fly. The statistics still show that flying is safer then driving a car and I think no one would think twice about driving anywhere. I also am thinking of going somewhere for vacation during the winter break now more than ever to show that I am not afraid of flying. Besides it is much cheaper to take a vacation now so why not? I don't believe that there is any added danger than there was prior to September 11th!
"It may still be dangerous!!!" from Phillip Goldfeder (18:27:43 11/20/01) While I agree that flying is still safe, and also plan to fly, I do believe there is added danger involved since September 11th. For example all the people who have tried to bring knives on to planes only to prove that it can be done and that they can beat the security. Also, who is to say that the terrorists won't use more planes in their attacks. Everybody has been saying that they expect more attacks why wouldn't they use a plane???
"Flying is still dangerous" from Priscilla DelValle (00:14:17 11/22/01) I do not agree that flying is safe now. There has been to many incidents involving the lack of airport security. When our country institutes a security system that works, than I will fly again.
"Still not safe to fly.." from Carol Neufville (16:27:33 11/24/01) I agree with Priscilla that flying is not safe. At least once a week you hear of someone who prove that weapons can be taken on the airplane. A few weeks ago, a passenger went on the plane with a gun in his pocket. Another went on with a dozen box cutters, just to prove a point. Come on guys, how can you say it is safe to fly? Like Priscilla says "When our country institutes a security system that works, than I will fly again."
"Not Only Airlines " from Pavels Zavalijs (21:50:42 11/24/01) I was in the train the other day coming from work during the rush hour. I thought, standing in the crowded car, why most of Americans now relate terrorist acts to airplanes? I once heard a man who follows Bin Laden closely who suggested that Bin Laden is a professional and he won't do the same terrorist act twice. And I still have this terrible kind of thought that if anything the next terrorist act, God forbid, could happen in the subway, where there is a lot of people and almost no security.
"Flying" from Radalexina Sauer (21:45:47 11/29/01) I was anxious about flying after September 11th but had booked a cruise for early November. By then I felt brave enough to go and the flights there and back went well. The only real difference I saw was the extremely increased security in the airports. The scary thing was that I flew back into JFK on Sunday night, November 11th. On Monday morning American Airlines flight 587 crashed. Now I think I will wait a pretty long time before I fly again. But the truth is if something is going to happen we have no control over it. Even if we are in our houses sleeping or eating like they were in Canarsie that day, we could die. The world is not a safe place and that is a fact that we must always live with.
"Too Many People On The Road-Maybe It Is Safer To Fly!" from Alina Noble (10:18:38 11/21/01) My 26-year old, 6'1 cousin was flying to see his girlfriend in New Orleans, and even he said that there were 2 Arab looking men sitting in front of the plane and everyone had their eyes glued to them. My cousin said that "...if either one of them would get up to go to the restroom, I'd need oxygen..." but that was right when we started flying again, I'm sure things are somewhat different now. And if people are really flying less, well then more people are driving, which is probably increasing the rates of people who will be under the influence of alcohol, or people who will be on too little sleep-considering that it is a Holiday time. By having more people on the roads, and everyone being all stressed out, it's probably more dangerous to drive nowadays than fly!!
"Do you think the United States is AN evil EMPIRE?" from Howard Graham (01:26:51 11/25/01) For sure,America is one of the greatest nation on this planet. You mentioned that every country look towards America for help,as if to argue that America doesn't seek help from other countries. The United States more than any other country in the world has benefited from the vision of immigrants who arrive with their skills to help build this country. History will teach you that this great nation only place a lot of emphasis on countries where they can benefit. Do you know how many people are working in third world countries working in factories to create products for American capitalist? These workers are exploited and sometime even experience a sense of alienation and a low salary.
"Super power" from Marjorie Gregory (23:39:42 11/28/01) The US is the super power of the world. Every country when they are in trouble look to us for help, whether it be a coup, uprising, financial, hunger etc. The US has done more good for nations than evil. People have turned to the US for every form of help. There are far too many legal and illegal immigrants in the US for this amazing powerful country to be evil. People have left their homes in every part of the world just to live in the US. How evil could we be?
"Who is looking now" from Elena Rodriguez (19:15:16 11/30/01) The United States is a very rich country. And like the rich it is used to being admired, imitated, and looked up to. The rich never see, or think of the struggling masses. They live in their own private world where we can never reach. Big, rich countries aren't interest in small, poor countries unless it has something they want. It is not that a rich country is any less feeling about the circumstances of poorer places. It is just that like the rich, they feel, it has nothing to do with them. They hoard their riches and think themselves immortal and never think about the example they are setting, who might be watching ö forming impressions and learning from them. We see the rich with their luxury cars, mansions, yachts, and all the trappings of their lives, and we think that they are different. They don't have the moral fortitude, religious believes, or family loyalty that we do. This is how the world sees us.
"Anthrax!" from Deborah Moses (22:07:10 11/25/01) Where did all the fuss about the anthrax attacks go? Was it a way to throw off the attacks on the world Trade Center. Did they succeed in diverting the media away from what seemed like never ending story?
"Anthrax - the newest media hype" from Radalexina Sauer (21:34:49 11/27/01) What happened to all the crack babies and missing children we used to hear about all the time years ago? They were big news for long periods of time and people were in a panic over the effects of these problems. Now we hardly hear about them, though they may still be problems in our society. The press has a way of hyping up an issue that is currently a public concern and then dropping it when the next thing comes along. In this case the hype didn't last long probably because the main focus is on the war. But it is also possible that the government used its leverage to get the media to stop focusing on Anthrax because they were adding to the panic that the public is already in because of the terrorist acts.
"Panic and fear" from Christine Imbemba (00:05:53 11/28/01) Panic is sometimes the only element that will keep people alert and cautious. It stirs our emotions. As we have seen, panic initiated many HEALTHY people to take antibiotics in fear of an anthrax outbreak. Panic can be a good thing if it teaches us how to work fast and effective under stress or pressure, but most of the time panic has a way of retarding us. We become so paranoid and self absorbed, we lose the necessary common sense that keep us grounded and rational minded. As for the media, it is possible that the anthrax scare in general was a tool used to induce mass hysteria and panic among Americans. Whether or not it is related to terrorism, or a product of our own, is yet to be known.
"Attorney client privileges" from Deborah Moses (21:24:52 11/26/01) Do you think is Constitutional for the U.S Government to be secretly listening to conversation between suspected terrorists and their Lawyers?
"Why Not?" from Manal Abdelaziz (18:38:08 11/27/01) This was a good question and the answer will differ from one person to another. YES, why not? I do think that it would be constitutional for the U.S government to secretly listening to conversations between terrorists and their lawyers. Especially at this particular time ( The time of war),and like people saying "anything is allowed in love and war".
"Eavesdropping on Terrorists" from Radalexina Sauer (22:02:22 11/27/01) It does not seem constitutional for us to be listening to confidential conversations between a lawyer and his client. However, in the current situation I am supportive of the government doing whatever it can to get the people who are responsible for the terrorist acts of September 11th. I agree with Manal, all is fair in love and war.
"Well if you've got nothing to hide." from Prashant Somashekar (14:23:28 12/02/01) I totally believe it is constitutional, given our current situation. Not in any other scenario though. Until we can effectively figure out what means works the best, we must try them all. A trial and error of sorts.
"The Fate of Osama" from Allison Goodman (16:48:18 11/27/01) If we capture Osama bin Laden, should we put him on trial, or execute him on the spot? What are the consequences of each course of action?
"Trial" from Marjorie Gregory (23:20:51 11/28/01) As much as the US was attacked off guard on 9/11/01 and it known that Bin Laden masterminded all this, if he was to be caught and brought to the US for trial the whole world would be watching to see how he would be dealt with. The US is built on justice and freedom for all therefore they cannot go against what they stand for. As much as Bin Laden is responsible for many thousands of lives in all his terrorists attacks he still has to be given a fair trial. We cannot just execute a person regardless of whether or not he is a killer, unfortunately this also applies to Bin Laden.
"EXECUTE" from Christine Imbemba (23:42:36 11/27/01) There will be consequences for any course of action we choose to take in dealing with Bin Laden directly(when and if that time arrives). The most feasible and nationally appreciated solution would be to publicly execute him. Of course, such a decision would cause a mixture of feelings. I'm sure he would even have some sympathizers. In a situation as difficult and trying as this one, perhaps we have to use some kind of "biblical" guidelines for our course of actions- does an EYE FOR AN EYE ring a bell? Bin Laden and all those who supported his chicanerous acts should face just punishment and equal pain. Just as all those survivors of the attacks were forced to grieve and feel the pain of loss, Bin Laden should suffer too.
"Swift Justice, No way!" from Vanessa Funches (01:13:53 11/29/01) A swift public execution is to good for OBL, he can always ask Allah for forgiveness and have a hope of a resurrection someday, which makes dying easier for him. He would probably laugh at us. An eye for eye would mean we would have to blow him up. Nah, that's still to good for him. What he needs is something slow and painful that would make him reflect on his horrific deeds while here on earth. The President should toss that question out to the American people, especially the family members who lost love ones for a response.
"Whose fault is it really?!" from Sandra Granillo (11:08:31 11/29/01) Since the united states believes in free will (civil rights) should we impose those liberties onto other countries that don't share in our beliefs?
"Freedom should be chosen" from Radalexina Sauer (22:13:45 11/29/01) I do not think that we can or should impose our beliefs on other countries. Our belief in freedom means that we believe they are free to run their countries as they wish. We would be contradicting this belief if we imposed our beliefs on other countries. Freedom must be chosen not imposed. It would be wonderful if all the countries in the world believed in freedom, but that is not reality. In order to help these countries achieve freedom we would have to become more involved and our government has not shown the desire to do so in the past. Besides our involvement may just fuel the hate for western civilization that emanates from countries like Afghanistan.
"In your face" from Elena Rodriguez (18:26:07 11/30/01) The United States has and will continue to impose its will on other countries. The treatment of the American Indians is a big example. In its initial settling of the U.S., the American driven from their land, and forced to submit to the European way of life. Their religious beliefs, customs, clothing, and language, were not allowed to be used. This has been a continuous occurrence for every new immigrant that landed in these shores. Things might look different today with all the talk of political correctness, and getting in touch with your ethnic culture, but you can see the writing on the wall when you hear on the news of the United States giving economic assistance to other countries. Behind the veil of generosity is always a hidden agenda. The United States doesn't even have plant its feet in other countries to spread its message. Now with all the access to new modes of communication (telephone, computers, and television) - its images, carrying sometimes an inaccurate portrayal of our way of life, resounds around the world.
"Human Rights" from Christine Imbemba (10:09:24 12/01/01) Imposing beliefs is not the sole issue. Human rights is actually what we're evaluating. When the U.S "imposes" or infiltrates its political beliefs and systems on foreign cultures, it's not done on the basis of ethnocentrism alone. There are certain undeniable rights human beings have, regardless of their cultural technicalities and differences. In actuality, we are interfering not on the basis of our national superiority, but because we have a responsibility as fellow human beings to protect those who are being dehumanized IN and OUTSIDE of the United States.