![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
BABY’S GOT AN ATOM BOMB / A MOTHERF***ING ATOM BOMB
I don’t normally do a 9/11 anniversary post – we all know what happened, and my own anecdotes aren’t anything that millions of others haven’t already told. But I think I’ll make an exception this year for a couple of reasons.
1. This year was the first time I completely failed to associate the calendar date with the event. Or at least it’s the first time I’ve noticed this. I’ve been scheduling work-related meetings on the day and never once thought, hey, 9/11 anniversary, until today. I take this to be a good sign.
2. On Monday, the bipartisan Partnership for a Secure America released a report assessing the state of WMDs in the world and how much safer we are seven years after 9/11. Result:
In other words, with all the WMD in the world, your President went and invaded the one country that didn’t have any.
Thanks. You bastard.
Mind you, I think the report itself is probably overplaying the threat somewhat. Yes, if a terrorist got his/her hands on a bioweapon or nuke, that would be bad. So people look at reports like these and say, “Wow, it’s a wonder we haven’t seen another 9/11”.
Maybe, but ever wonder why that is? Here are two reasons why: al Qaeda is overrated as a threat, and most terrorists (in the US, anyway) aren’t all that smart. If they were, we’d have had another 9/11 ages ago. Honestly, it wouldn’t be hard to get 20 guys in 20 states to make pipe bombs in the basement and set them off in 20 Mickey D’s. All you’d need are 20 really determined people who understand chemistry and really want to kill innocent people. Or they could just buy assault rifles and go on a time-synchronized shooting spree at local malls.
Hasn’t happened. Why? Well, it’s not because of the TSA’s no-fly list or the NSA’s warrantless wiretaps. And it sure as hell isn’t because we’re keeping them in Iraq.
Granted, it could happen, and even a dumb terrorist can do some damage, and probably will one day, no matter how Draconian the laws get. But the response should be proportionate to the threat, and so should the rhetoric. So this “OMG WMD is everywhere!” line is arguably overselling the actual threat.
But then that’s life in the post-9/11 age – especially during election season. You’ll be hearing a lot more of John McCain & Friends promising that if you vote for Obama, yr all gonna die violently. And whatever response Team Obama comes up with to that, the one thing you probably WON’T hear them say is, “Look, Al Qaeda’s a joke, okay? We have evidence, and it’s time to stop overreacting and selling fear to the American People®” Because no one wants to look soft of teh terrors.
Still, as long as everyone’s being irrational, it’d be nice if someone – anyone – brought up the WMD report to McCain and Obama and said, “Here’s the latest – now what are you going to do to fix it?”
No nukes,
This is dF
1. This year was the first time I completely failed to associate the calendar date with the event. Or at least it’s the first time I’ve noticed this. I’ve been scheduling work-related meetings on the day and never once thought, hey, 9/11 anniversary, until today. I take this to be a good sign.
2. On Monday, the bipartisan Partnership for a Secure America released a report assessing the state of WMDs in the world and how much safer we are seven years after 9/11. Result:
Efforts to reduce access to nuclear technology and bomb-making materials have slowed, thousands of US chemical plants remain unprotected, and the U.S. government continues to oppose strengthening an international treaty to prevent bioterrorism...
The report and supporting studies describe the failure of international cooperation to prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, which they call a major problem. Many countries continue to ignore a United Nations mandate to prevent the spread of weapons; the ability of many countries to monitor potential bioterrorism is "essentially nonexistent," and dangerous chemical weapons stockpiles remain in some countries, including Russia and Libya, the report said.
The report and supporting studies describe the failure of international cooperation to prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, which they call a major problem. Many countries continue to ignore a United Nations mandate to prevent the spread of weapons; the ability of many countries to monitor potential bioterrorism is "essentially nonexistent," and dangerous chemical weapons stockpiles remain in some countries, including Russia and Libya, the report said.
In other words, with all the WMD in the world, your President went and invaded the one country that didn’t have any.
Thanks. You bastard.
Mind you, I think the report itself is probably overplaying the threat somewhat. Yes, if a terrorist got his/her hands on a bioweapon or nuke, that would be bad. So people look at reports like these and say, “Wow, it’s a wonder we haven’t seen another 9/11”.
Maybe, but ever wonder why that is? Here are two reasons why: al Qaeda is overrated as a threat, and most terrorists (in the US, anyway) aren’t all that smart. If they were, we’d have had another 9/11 ages ago. Honestly, it wouldn’t be hard to get 20 guys in 20 states to make pipe bombs in the basement and set them off in 20 Mickey D’s. All you’d need are 20 really determined people who understand chemistry and really want to kill innocent people. Or they could just buy assault rifles and go on a time-synchronized shooting spree at local malls.
Hasn’t happened. Why? Well, it’s not because of the TSA’s no-fly list or the NSA’s warrantless wiretaps. And it sure as hell isn’t because we’re keeping them in Iraq.
Granted, it could happen, and even a dumb terrorist can do some damage, and probably will one day, no matter how Draconian the laws get. But the response should be proportionate to the threat, and so should the rhetoric. So this “OMG WMD is everywhere!” line is arguably overselling the actual threat.
But then that’s life in the post-9/11 age – especially during election season. You’ll be hearing a lot more of John McCain & Friends promising that if you vote for Obama, yr all gonna die violently. And whatever response Team Obama comes up with to that, the one thing you probably WON’T hear them say is, “Look, Al Qaeda’s a joke, okay? We have evidence, and it’s time to stop overreacting and selling fear to the American People®” Because no one wants to look soft of teh terrors.
Still, as long as everyone’s being irrational, it’d be nice if someone – anyone – brought up the WMD report to McCain and Obama and said, “Here’s the latest – now what are you going to do to fix it?”
No nukes,
This is dF
no subject
There's no question real threats exist. But the most effective way to stop them (in countries with due process and law enforcement) is old fashioned intel and police-style work. And even that won't be 100% effective. But no politician in his/her right mind is going to actually say that out loud.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-09-11 11:48 pm (UTC)(link)London, of course... teach me to post when I'm supposed to be sleeping.
I doubt bin Laden had very much to do with Bali; those guys are more of a franchise operation--but I guess it's in the interest of Teh Terrors to seem as world wide and coordinated as they can.
Agree totally with your last point.
-- JF