Has Al-Qaida won?

[eyeball]

Al Qaeda didn't win anything on 9/11, which as much as anything else was like an opening shot in a civil war that tore al Qaeda apart. Many Muslims were content to simply battle those despots and dictators America supported on their own terms in their own region and pass on Bin Laden's desire to carry the battle to the 'distant enemy' as he put it. Many Muslims dedicated to overthrowing these dictatorships declared 9/11 a disaster for their cause. I think the real disaster of 9/11 is that it delayed the Arab Spring, probably by about 8 or 9 years.

Notice how those who crow that Bin Laden's real goal and intent on 9/11 to trigger a Pan Muslim Caliphate failed. Ironically these seem just as fearful that the Arab Spring will nonetheless lead to just that. Whatever happens the bad-will in the region in the wake of the reaction to 9/11 and of course the economic depression now settling over the globe couldn't have come at a worst time. The word FUBAR definitely comes to mind.

Nobody wins now.

[Guest American Woman]

Then you took my intent the wrong way (and I won't respond on behalf of posters after me).

Perhaps I did take your intent the wrong way, but notice I didn't quote your post -I was responding to the thread, not just you, so I wouldn't expect you to respond "on behalf of" posters after you. I will ask you, though, do you agree that this is 'the most successful retaliation victory in the history of man?' Since your question initiated that response, I'm curious as to what you think about it. I can't help but notice that you haven't commented on any of the other responses in this thread.

I was not saying this to gloat, but rather to present it as something to think about. Nothing to celebrate; it's sad, really.

The targeting of innocent people, the loss of life, the "desire to kill" innocents, war - yes, it's all sad.

One thing I will say though is that it would seem that in the US, and in Caanda to a degree too, people seem fearful of even raising the question and questoning it, how much it costs, etc.

No one I know is "fearful" of raising the question. I find your choice of phrasing the question interesting, though. "Has al-Qaida won?" Seems like a pretty one-sided loaded question to me. And the initial responses support my view.

And no better time than at its anniversary to look back at it and its impact on our society.

So perhaps a more appropriate question would have been "what impact has 9-11 had on our society" instead of phrasing the question to insinuate al Qaeda has won - as all these horrible things have taken place in the U.S. as a result.

It was "our" society that was attacked. Yet your OP is all about the U.S. And all negative. So if I took your intent the wrong way, perhaps there's a reason.

Edited September 10, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Not only did they win, but the Americans helped their cause tremendously. They proved to the rest of the world who the real evil doers are. American deaths from 911 2,996. Iraq documented civilian deaths 102,416 - 111,937. All for nothing, An illegal war built on a lie.

Your view doesn't speak for "the rest of the world."

As to those Iraqi deaths - how many Iraqis were dying under Saddam? How many died at the hands of the insurgents?

You make it sound as if Iraq was a peaceful nation before the attack, where no one was dying.

How many lives were lost because of the sanctions? How does that compare to how many were lost in the war? How long would the sanctions have lasted? How long would Saddam have been in power - compared to how long the loss of life lasted because of U.S. military action?

"All for noting" is a pretty broad statement when Saddam was removed from power - and Iraq now has the chance for democracy. That's not to say the war was the right thing to do, but even if one sees it as the wrong thing to do it wasn't "all for nothing." Unless that's what one wants to see.

As for "proving ... who the real evil doers are." Seriously. You think Saddam was better? I can't even begin to understand where a statement like that is coming from. It comes across as pure anti-American to me.

How many lives do you think have been saved worldwide because of Saddam? How many lives to you think have been changed for the better worldwide because of Saddam? How many lives to you think have been saved because of U.S. humanitarian actions? - donations? - medical research? Do you think that was any kind of priority with Saddam? Again, people in Iraq were dying by the thousands under Saddam.

But yes. The U.S. is the "real evil doer." The world would be a much better place if there were only more leaders like Saddam and less leaders like the U.S. That's what you are saying. Unbelievable, really.

Edited September 10, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I don't sense any anti-Americanism in the OP. His is a fair statement, and a fair question. To say the 9/11 attacks were successful from a strategic point of view, which is where I see the OP coming from, is a fair statement.

I don't see how it can possibly be a "fair statement" without looking at the blows al Qaeda has suffered - as I already pointed out, it's very one-sided the way it is presented.

This 9/11 anniversary is for everyone to remember those who lost their lives and otherwise suffered because of the attacks, but it should also be a time when we should reflect on the actions of our governments after the attacks.

"Our governments," you say. Yet the OP presented it as a "war against the U.S.," which it most certainly was not/is not. Or perhaps the U.S. is the only nation that "lost?" Difficult to tell from the OP, which focuses completely on the negative in the U.S.

We will mourn the 3000 or so who were killed in NYC/DC, but it is also tragic the tens of thousands of innocents, if not over a hundred thousand, who were killed needlessly by our govs militaries & hired guns.

Of course the loss of all the innocent lives is tragic. However, the OP doesn't say that to me.

Were the lives lost in WWII by our govs militaries and hired guns "needless" too? And what about all the lives being lost in Iraq before the war - was it more acceptable to let that go on endlessly? And life under the Taliban - was that preferable to a democracy? This is what I don't get - the singling out of the deaths from this war as somehow more "evil" than the unavoidable innocent deaths in other wars - along with the idea that "no good" has come of this. That's just a false statement, whether one agrees with the war(s) or not.

Furthermore, quite a few Canadians present Afghanistan as a justifiable war, while the Iraq war is pure evil. Good has been accomplished in Afghanistan, but no good has been accomplished by the evil Americans in Iraq. That comes across as purely patriotism to me, with a dose of anti-Americanism. Nothing more.

Innocent civilians were targeted and killed on 9-11 and in previous terrorist attacks and subsequent terrorist attacks. Do you think we should have just ignored that - and done nothing? Just wait for it to go away? Just let innocent people continue to be targeted and killed? What kind of a message do you think that would have sent after an attack like 9-11? You don't think that would have emboldened them - and led to more endless tragedy?

Yes, the loss of innocent lives in all parts of the world is sad. The idea is to put a time frame on it, and hopefully end it or weaken it to the point where it does fizzle out.

[Sir Bandelot]

Al Qaeda didn't win anything on 9/11, which as much as anything else was like an opening shot in a civil war that tore al Qaeda apart. Many Muslims were content to simply battle those despots and dictators America supported on their own terms in their own region and pass on Bin Laden's desire to carry the battle to the 'distant enemy' as he put it. Many Muslims dedicated to overthrowing these dictatorships declared 9/11 a disaster for their cause. I think the real disaster of 9/11 is that it delayed the Arab Spring, probably by about 8 or 9 years.

Notice how those who crow that Bin Laden's real goal and intent on 9/11 to trigger a Pan Muslim Caliphate failed. Ironically these seem just as fearful that the Arab Spring will nonetheless lead to just that. Whatever happens the bad-will in the region in the wake of the reaction to 9/11 and of course the economic depression now settling over the globe couldn't have come at a worst time. The word FUBAR definitely comes to mind.

Nobody wins now.

From the perspective of justice for muslims, you are right. But from the perspective of al qaida, 9-11 was a smash success. Not just the destruction of the towers per se, but the aftermath, both economic and social/ cultural. The free world became less free, everywhere. If they truly hate us for our freedoms, as the saying goes, they did well for their cause. I think we helped them, by over-reacting.

You mentioned arab spring, and yes, their actions radicalized many muslims. Again we helped them, by over-reacting.

It's arguable that the economic debacle today is a consequence of expensive wars that accomplished little. If it was their intention to take down the system through harming one of it's most cherished values (money), they've certainly done that.

It's arguable that we are still dealing with the damage in the aftermath, and this is not over yet. Certainly not over as we continue wasting large amounts of money on efforts that yield little value. The whole security apparatus seems to be a colossal waste. But once these things are put in place, they're impossible to get rid of. There will never be a time when we can 'stand down'. As they say now, the lone wolf is our greatest threat, and for that we must put entire countries on alert.

I would say al qaida has not won any battles, yet they have won the war.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[BubberMiley]

In terms of the OP, it's clear that in terms of working to bring down the American empire, 911 was unfortunately very successful.

In terms of subsequent posts, it appears that it was even successful in creating a crazed paranoia among Americans that anti-Americanism lurks behind every corner and between the lines of every statement. It's kind of sad to see.

[bush_cheney2004]

...It was "our" society that was attacked. Yet your OP is all about the U.S. And all negative. So if I took your intent the wrong way, perhaps there's a reason.

...good reason, as that is how I read it as well. Some here are all consumed with a polarized "US" view no matter what the issue, from EPA regulations to who Americans should vote for. So it's no surprise that a "Has Al-Qaida Won" thread emerges on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack (only one of many around the world), with the requisite parsing of US and "west". The responses of Canadians on that and subsequent days, including military deployments and engagements (e.g. Op Apollo, ISAF, JTF2) is/was much larger than just a singular idea of "winning or losing" against Al-Qaida.

This same small mind set could be found during the Cold War, which was far more expensive in blood and treasure. I suppose they would argue that the "other side" won in that case as well. And of course they dare not confront identical isues found during the great world wars for king and empire....that would be unpatriotic!

[eyeball]

Have to agree with you...my life hasn't changed very much, and what did change was for the better. I wonder if these few Canadians who are so smug about the impact of 9/11 on the world (not just the USA), asked the same question ten years after the end of WW2, which saw much American blood and money expended to preserve what was left of their royal "empire".

It definitely would have been a good question to ask given the money and resources the US invested after WW2 in its bid to be the next empire.

[bush_cheney2004]

It definitely would have been a good question to ask given the money and resources the US invested after WW2 in its bid to be the next empire.

Why not dare ask it during WW2? Why do such clever folks in Canada always draw the line at post WW2?

Has Germany and Japan won? Has North Korea won? Has the Soviet Union won?

[eyeball]

Why not dare ask it during WW2? Why do such clever folks in Canada always draw the line at post WW2?

Because it was post WW2 that your country lost it's way and was led down the garden path by the allure and promise of empire.

Has Germany and Japan won? Has North Korea won? Has the Soviet Union won?

No. Has your's?

[GostHacked]

The US military industrial complex employs tens of thousands of people in research, development and manufacturing of military and defence equipment. Other countries are all too glad to import these goods, including Canada. Cha-ching, cha-ching go cash registers all over the US.

But all those tens of thousands of people are making nothing more than weapons to kill for the industrial military complex.

[Machjo]

Perhaps I did take your intent the wrong way, but notice I didn't quote your post -I was responding to the thread, not just you, so I wouldn't expect you to respond "on behalf of" posters after you.

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

I will ask you, though, do you agree that this is 'the most successful retaliation victory in the history of man?' Since your question initiated that response, I'm curious as to what you think about it. I can't help but notice that you haven't commented on any of the other responses in this thread.

Was this retaliation? In the mind of Bin Ladin it might have been. In my mind though it is not at all, since I don't retaliate against A for what B might have done to me. The people on those planes and in those buildings did not necessarily have anything to do with any perceived offense someone may have committed against Bin Ladin's "us", and therefore Bin Ladin's attacks on the WTC and Pentagon with civilian airliners was plain murder and ought to be treated as such.

The targeting of innocent people, the loss of life, the "desire to kill" innocents, war - yes, it's all sad.

Agreed.

No one I know is "fearful" of raising the question. I find your choice of phrasing the question interesting, though. "Has al-Qaida won?" Seems like a pretty one-sided loaded question to me. And the initial responses support my view.

I've been busy in the last few days and so did start that thread fast without really thinking about it. Looking back on it, "won" was incorrect a word. It might have been more accurate to ask if we had lost rather than had Al-Qaide won, since Al-Qaida has clearly not won. Al-Qaida has lost too in many ways, with even many Muslims rejecting Al-Qaida's actions as being anti-Muslim. However, it is fair to say that while Al-Qaida has lost or at least is losing, so are we when we look at the growth of Islamophobia in the West, the money spent on an illegal war abroad (though Afthanistan was a legal war, Iraq clearly wasn't and had nothing to do with 9/11 other than 9/11 as a pretext, along with false facts), the tarring of our human rights reputation at Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib, the Park 57 protests, prejudice against those who look Muslim, etc.

So perhaps a more appropriate question would have been "what impact has 9-11 had on our society" instead of phrasing the question to insinuate al Qaeda has won - as all these horrible things have taken place in the U.S. as a result.

That question would have been as inaccurate as my own original one, since the purpose of the thread was not so generally about how 9/11 has impacted us, but rather on whether we have failed to win against Al-Qaida's original intentions by our actions since 9/11. And the fact that Al-Qaida has failed to accomplish its objectives does not mean we have succeeded in ours. It would seem that owing to actions of both sides, neither side has won. On our side though, the fact that we've sometimes violated our own long-established and long-held principles, that is a particular symbolic blow to us.

It was "our" society that was attacked. Yet your OP is all about the U.S. And all negative. So if I took your intent the wrong way, perhaps there's a reason.

Fair enough. I hope my correction above clarifies that.

[Sir Bandelot]

Has Germany and Japan won? Has North Korea won? Has the Soviet Union won?

Fascism won.

And the point I'm making is, you can defeat a people militarily but you can't defeat ideas.

[capricorn]

But all those tens of thousands of people are making nothing more than weapons to kill for the industrial military complex.

How else are you going to equip yourself to confront and kill the enemy, and defend yourself? War is hell.

Let's not forget that the so called US industrial military complex's inventions contributed substantially to progress.

Top 10 Military Inventions

1. Atomic Energy

2. Anesthesia

3. Computer

4. Internet

5. Satellite technology

6. Penicillin

7. Synthetic Rubber

8. Jet engine

9. Submarine

10.Pepto Bismal

http://www.lowvarates.com/va-loan-blog/top-10-technological-advances-during-wartime-american/

There are a variety of products we commonly use today that derive from that industry.

I'd say that matches up pretty well against the suicide vest concocted by the terrorists.

[jbg]

Considering how 9/11 has changed the US, in terms of raising prejudices against Muslims, polarizing US politics, sending the US off to war, raising the US debt, imposing restrictions on air travel that have hurt the US tourism industry, the erosion of certain basic rights such as Habeas Corpus for certain detainees, etc., is it fair to say that in some respects, Al-Qaida has essentially won against the US in terms of its primary objective to weaken the country?

No, Al Qaida has not won. They may have succeeded in making life miserable for law-abiding Muslims and Sikhs though.

[Shady]

In terms of the OP, it's clear that in terms of working to bring down the American empire, 911 was unfortunately very successful.

Complete nonsense.

Life hasn't changed much at all. Al Qaeda's had its brains beaten in. If that's winning, then I don't wanna be on that type of winning end of anything.

And in terms of economics. Al Qaeda has nothing to do with bad mortgage policy and faulty financial instruments.

We give them a little too much credit for things they have or had nothing to do with. However, extra security at airports, and an increased awarness of radical Islam is definitely their doing.

[Sir Bandelot]

And in terms of economics. Al Qaeda has nothing to do with bad mortgage policy and faulty financial instruments.

We give them a little too much credit for things they have or had nothing to do with. However, extra security at airports, and an increased awarness of radical Islam is definitely their doing.

Perhaps, but if they hadn't a wasted so much on those wars, would they have been better able to weather the current economic storm?

That's like when my mother in law complains that she can't afford a new dishwasher, now that the one I bought her some years ago is broken. Well guess what Ma, if you hadn't have gone to the Casino and blew thousands, you'd be able to afford it. But no.

And now, I should pay again?

Pshaw! pshaw, I say.

Complete nonsense.

This seems like your standard response to everything you disagree with. Have you got that on a macro?

[bush_cheney2004]

Because it was post WW2 that your country lost it's way and was led down the garden path by the allure and promise of empire.

Nonsense...America's complete history is dotted with identical "transgressions" to greatness, starting with its birth all the way to Japanese internments during WW2. If you are going to play this game, do it with the blinders off.

No. Has your's?

Ask your monarchy.

[Shady]

Perhaps, but if they hadn't a wasted so much on those wars, would they have been better able to weather the current economic storm?

How so? I don't see how the two are connected. How is a war in another country related to bad mortgage policy, and the fall out from it? How is a war in another country related to GM and Chrysler's mismanagement? How is a war in another countery related to the debacles of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? The cost of war has been a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of TARP, stimulus, and QE1 and QE2. And has nothing to do with the recession and economic difficulties over the last few years. I really hate it when fearmongers try and conflate two completely seperate issues for their own political reasons.

This seems like your standard response to everything you disagree with. Have you got that on a macro?

I call it like I see it. If you don't like it. Too bad.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, Al Qaida has not won. They may have succeeded in making life miserable for law-abiding Muslims and Sikhs though.

That is most certainly the case. Add to that, many more "infidels" and their liberal ideas are crawling about Islamic countries. "Islamofascists" are being dragged kicking and screaming into at least the 20th century, or will die resisting the tug.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps, but if they hadn't a wasted so much on those wars, would they have been better able to weather the current economic storm?

You do realize what brought America completely out of the Great Depression, right?

[capricorn]

You do realize what brought America completely out of the Great Depression, right?

I can't find a link, but I heard a commentator say that the US currently spends 4.5 to 5% of GDP on the military and that more was spent per GDP in the second world war and the Vietnam war.

[Jack Weber]

I can't find a link, but I heard a commentator say that the US currently spends 4.5 to 5% of GDP on the military and that more was spent per GDP in the second world war and the Vietnam war.

The economic effect on the "War on Terror" has definatley put the US in a precarious financial position.If that was the effect Islamofascist groups (like Al Qaeda) wanted,to slowly destroy the US economy,they've done their job...

Edited September 11, 2011 by Jack Weber

[capricorn]

The economic effect on the "War on Terror" has definatley put the US in a precarious financial position.If that was the effect Islamofascist groups (like Al Qaeda) wanted,to slowly destroy the US economy,they've done their job...

I'm not so sure Jack. IMO the attacks were against symbols. Al Qaeda proved to itself it could destroy what represents western economies and US military might but not what's at their core.

The World Trade Center was never seen as an overly attractive piece of architecture, but as a symbol of American economic might, it was undeniably powerful. Never mind that it was built just as New York was imploding financially in the mid-1970s; it still stood as a set of dual icons representing the economic primacy not just of the United States, but of Wall Street and the entire financial industry.

---

The attacks were unprecedented for Americans, but they did not strike a blow against commerce, the world of capital, or the global economy as it was then evolving. Al Qaeda hoped that it could hobble the West by attacking its symbols at the Pentagon and the Trade Center, but those forces weren’t and still aren’t primarily geographic. The U.S. military is spread around the world, and the economic system al Qaeda hoped to destroy enveloped much of the world—just not al Qaeda. In short, with enough rage, you can cause immense pain, but you can’t disrupt global commerce by killing people and destroying buildings. There is no center to destroy; it was and is a decentralized system that has enriched much of humanity. Yes, the attacks succeeded in further polarizing the West and the Muslim world, but a decade later, in the wake of the Arab Spring, that seems more transitory than permanent.

http://www.newsweekinternational.com/articles/2011/09/09/9-11-anniversary-al-qaeda-s-failure-on-wall-street-vertical.html

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not so sure Jack. IMO the attacks were against symbols. Al Qaeda proved to itself it could destroy what represents western economies and US military might but not what's at their core.

Agreed...the WTC towers were flops initially as commercial office space and New Yorkers did not immediately adopt them as icons of anything. Even the '70s remake of King Kong was panned for substituting the WTC over the much more revered Empire State Building.

The Americans could easily destroy symbols and holy places for Islam, but it hasn't.