Gun Rights and the Tragedy of 911

 

Yesterday, I spent five hours watching documentaries on the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Capitol building. With one exception—a Geraldo Rivera special on the military response—the programs focused on the tragedy itself. They told heart-wrenching tales of heroism and suffering. They contrasted mesmerizing footage of horrific crime scenes with shockingly mundane images of the murdered men and women; their loved ones, homes and lives. One program ended with a jarring image: the face of Osama Bin Laden above the caption “Killed 2011.” The producer clearly implied a sense of closure—where none exists . . .

When U.S. troops entered the terrorists’ breeding ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was the realization of President Bush’s pledge to avenge our collective loss. Our failure in both theaters was almost as spectacular as the atrocities that triggered the military campaign.

Sure, we took out a whole bunch of bad guys. We forestalled attacks against the homeland. But our soldiers became mired in not one but two un-winnable wars. In short order, the number of U.S. casualties in these God-forsaken sewers of sectarian violence surpassed the number of casualties (not including 19 hijackers) killed on 911 (2,977).

I’m not saying the 911 terrorists “won,” but we spent tens of billions of dollars on foreign entanglements and sent thousands of our sons and daughters to their deaths. The terrorist threat may be diminished, but it remains. Meanwhile, the fear inspired by 911 has taken a huge toll on our political system.

Capitalizing on public anxiety, the U.S. government added tens of thousands of law enforcement officials to its bloated roster of federal police. Two new agencies were born: the Department of Homeland Security and the Transport Security Administration. The Patriot Act gave them all expanded powers—sacrificing individual liberty on the altar of  collective security.

And yet an important message has reached the masses, one that has profoundly altered their relationship with their government. Uncle Sam can’t keep you safe. Ipso facto. It can’t because it didn’t; terrorists successfully attacked America’s financial and bureaucratic heart.

In that sense, September 11th represets the loss of innocence for an entire generation. The terrorists breached our psychological defenses. They violated our “personal space” and eliminated our sense of safety and security.

There is no closure. No sense of “mission accomplished.” Even those who took solace in Osama bin Laden’s assassination aren’t naive enough to believe that they can let their guard down. Especially in the wake of the announcement of a specific, credible but unidentified threat against either New York City or Washington, D.C. Or somewhere . . .

Of more concern to this website’s readers, Americans applied the main lesson of 911—Big Brother can’t protect you from evil—to their personal circumstances. Despite declining crime rates, despite a larger, increasingly militarized police, tens of millions of Americans bought a self-defense gun. Millions more shifted their position on gun rights, supporting the right to own and/or carry a firearms for self-defense.

The Supreme Court played their part in this paradigm shift. But so did the 911 hijackers. While none of these fanatics used a gun, all of them held a metaphorical gun to our nation’s head—and pulled the trigger. Americans “remembered” that you can’t prevent or reason with evil. If you’re defending yourself, your loved ones, your community and your country, it’s better to have a firearm than not.

Our post-911 enthusiasm for the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the actual odds of a terrorist or criminal attack. Americans have decided to arm themselves just in case. And just as there’s nothing right about what the terrorists did to innocent lives, there’s nothing wrong with innocent lives taking responsibility for their own protection.

comments

  1. avatar matt says:

    After 10 years, your not tired of hearing about 9-11? 3k people died, who cares? It was caused by cowardice, from people watching one too many Chuck Norris movies, expecting their government to save them. Yes Americans recognized their vulnerability to attack, and their response was to give up their civil liberties with out a fight, just as the passengers on the flights gave up their lives without a fight. Instead of a day of honor for the ‘victims’, it should be a day of shame.

    Your claim that they armed themselves to protect themselves from terrorists in response to 9-11 is absurd. They willingly gave up their ability to arm themselves with the most benign objects thanks to TSA policies. If anything the increased gun sales around that time period would be better explained by the economic housing bubble which began shortly after 911.

    1. avatar Tim McNabb says:

      I care.

      Cultures are fluid things. I might agree with you that Americans are too comfortable with allowing others to manage their immediate safety, but civilizations are formed for mutual protection. The laws we equip our enforcement agencies with need constant review. Civil liberties are always going to need to be balanced with the mission of mutual protection governments exist to provide.

      Pouring contempt upon your countrymen may make you feel morally superior – like a pinched-faced some teetotaler – but these are our neighbors and loved ones. Snarling condemnation has no hope of convincing anyone of anything. Leadership is needed to move people from position A to position B.

      Take a long look at how you hold your community in your heart. Learn to inspire and make convincing arguments. Let people see that you have their best interests at heart, that you are not just some hyper-libertarian ass.

      1. avatar HAVEGUN says:

        What Tim said.

        +1

      2. avatar matt says:

        FYI, the PATRIOT Act (and others) didnt do anything to make us any safer. It was all ready illegal to hijack a plane. And even then, the shoe bomber and whatnot have proven the laws enacted still do nothing to protect us. The mission of mutual protection is futile, your going to die, the government cant do anything to stop that from happening. People like you with the idea that there can be balance are the very reason our liberties continue to be eroded.

        Pouring contempt upon cowards from their neighbors and loved ones would change the morals. It would bring back a sense of duty. Leadership is only needed for those too lazy or stupid to lead themselves. And just a quick question, but is leadership even relevant to this discussion?

        If it isnt obvious all ready, I’m personally not a big fan of the community I live in. Why inspire and make convincing arguments, Obama and Bush both did so, and I’m willing to bet you hate one if not both of them. And how exactly is shaming the fallen, show that I dont have their best interests at heart? It certainly lacks compassion, but if the ‘victims’ had been shamed beforehand by their community, they would have fought back.

        1. avatar karlb. says:

          Matt, sorry, but you are very wrong with your assessment of the passengers on those flights: there was no reason for them to thing the hijackers were terrorists. There would have been no reason for them to storm the cockpit and either regain control of the flight or bring the flight down. Other than some members of the intelligence community, no one thought that planes would be used as weapons.

        2. avatar matt says:

          When have airplane hijackers not been terrorists? Regarding planes as weapons, there was a X Files episode a few years before 911 which featured remote controlled jumbo jets used as missiles just like in 9-11 (sans remote control). Also if someone is threatening you with a box cutter and hijacking your plane, then chances are they mean you harm.

        3. avatar Eric S. says:

          At the time the chances were greater they wanted to go to Cuba. Out Flight Operations manual used to have Spanish language stuff to say to any hijackers, particularly “the airplane doesn’t have enough fuel to make it to Cuba”. I don’t know how old you were or how much aviation stuff you saw, but no one expected suicide hijackers. The one that pointed the way was the FedEx in Memphis in 1996 (i think).

        4. avatar Buuurr says:

          lulz… Matt…

        5. avatar BambiB says:

          Actually, best-selling author Tom Clancy wrote not one, but two best-selling books (Debt of Honor, Executive orders) that dealt with crashing an airliner into the Capitol Building during a joint session of Congress. They were published in 1994 and 1996 respectively.

          To say no one expected suicide hijackers is only to admit that the FAA and FBI were incompetent.

        6. avatar Eric S says:

          Bambi, that’s like saying we should be expecting alien invasions because of other works of fiction that include that topic.

          The FedEx flight actually happened, Clancy’s stuff was fiction.

          Still, up to that day the best bet for a passenger was to ride it out. Trust me, it still disturbs me that there wasn’t some kind of change after the FedEx flight, but hindsight is 20/20.

        7. avatar BambiB says:

          Why stop at aliens? Why not genies and warlocks and gorgons?

          There’s fiction of the possible, and then there’s fictional flights of fancy.

          If you can’t tell the difference, I certainly can’t help you.

  2. avatar Tim McNabb says:

    I think you’ve hit a couple important points. 9/11 was the inevitable result of not taking the threat seriously, of preferring the accolades of the Left to the quiet, relentless work of rolling up bad guys.

    Terrorism occupies the valley between criminal gangs and hostile states. We can only defeat Terrorism by making the nations where they breed afraid of American response, that they see terror hideouts and terror planning as an existential threat to the state itself because we’ll wipe them out. I think that these states are on their way to losing their fear.

    1. avatar matt says:

      Kids from your neighborhood are gang banging in mine. Is it ok for me to launch attacks on the housing subdivision you live in, so that fear of my future retaliation will ensure you kids never come over to my side of town?

      1. avatar Tim McNabb says:

        Subdivisions are not nations, so there are aspects of your analogy that do not work in a nation of laws. Still, I will answer your question from a moral standpoint, not practical one.

        If we lived in some anarchy, and you had responsibility for protecting your neighborhood, AND you had exhausted all the reasonable steps to end whatever reign of terror “my kids” were engaging in, then yes, you would be justified in choosing the lesser evil of pounding my neighborhood until I and my neighbors decided taking care of the gangs in my neighborhood was less costly than letting you do it.

        We live in an ugly world. Choosing lesser evils is a way of life.

        1. avatar matt says:

          So then, why dont we do 2 things, replace the word gang banger with American Armed Forces, and ask the question why did they attack us. Are you naivie enough to belive they did so because they hate our freedom? Did you bother to read the public letter Bin Laden sent? “…you attacked us and continue to attack us…in Palestine…in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon. Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis…These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual…You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world…You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.” The list of reasons goes on and on, you should try reading it sometime.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

          If its ok for me to retaliate against your subdivision when your kids are causing trouble, why is it improper for him to retaliate against us when our troops and tax dollars are starting extreme violence in his neighborhood?

      2. avatar davvehall says:

        @Matt.Hey man step it down a notch, this is TTAG, not DetectiveShavedLongCock!!.

      3. avatar Silver says:

        I’d say it’s ok if said subdivision houses, protects, and lauds what the gang bangers are doing. Screw ’em.

    2. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Except you’re forgetting that the US caused those terrorists to come into existence. Sure, the Western World has been at war with Islam for centuries – but this type of attack was purely the result of the US spending most of the last century bullying every other country aroung and sticking it’s nose where it doesn’t belong.

      The only way to defeat “terrorism” (which you never can – remember, the colonials fighting against the British were “terrorists”) is to stop trying to be a global empire. Focus on DEFENSE and if someone attacks us, then retaliate. Do NOT go around attacking every other country just because you don’t like their policies.

  3. avatar Phil says:

    “When U.S. troops entered the terrorists’ breeding ground in Iraq”

    Every American should get clear on this. What follows should not be too much to read for anyone concerned with “truth.” Using 9/11 as reason for invading Iraq has nothing to do with truth or defense, but you might call it misdirected vengeance.

    “As with the argument that Iraq was developing biological and nuclear weapons, evidence linking Hussein and Al-Qaeda was discredited by multiple U.S. intelligence agencies soon after the invasion of Iraq.[6]

    In asserting a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, the Bush Administration focused special attention on alleged ties between Hussein and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who Secretary of State Powell called a “collaborator of Osama bin Laden.”[75] Soon after the start of the war, however, evidence of such ties was discredited by multiple U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Department’s Inspector General’s Office. A CIA report in early October 2004 “found no clear evidence of Iraq harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” [76] More broadly, the CIA’s Kerr Group summarized in 2004 that despite “a ‘purposely aggressive approach’ in conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches for such links… [the U.S.] Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed.”[77] Despite these findings, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has continued to assert that a link existed between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which has drawn criticism from members of the intelligence community and leading Democrats.[78] As of the invasion, Bush’s own State Department listed 45 countries, including the United States where Al Qaeda was active. Iraq was not one of them.[79]

    The eventual lack of evidence linking the Hussein government and Al Qaeda led many war critics to allege that the Bush Administration purposely fabricated such links to strengthen the case for the invasion.[80] These claims were supported by the July 2005 release of the so-called Downing Street Memo, in which Richard Dearlove (then head of British foreign intelligence service MI6) wrote that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed [by the U.S.] around the policy” of removing Saddam Hussein from power.[62] In addition, in his April 2007 report Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble found that the Defense Department’s Office of Special Plans—run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith, a close ally of Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—purposely manipulated evidence to strengthen the case for war.[6] The Inspector General’s report also highlighted the role of members of the Iraqi National Congress, a group headed by Ahmad Chalabi in providing false intelligence about connections with al-Qaeda to build support for a U.S. invasion.[81][82]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

    1. avatar Carl says:

      While all this may be true, you can’t use Wikipedia as a credible source. Seriously? You may as well have cited Mary Poppins!

      1. avatar matt says:

        If you bothered to actually go to wikipedia just once in your life, you would notice at the bottom of every article, there is a list of references, which go to sites you would consider to be more credible. The Washington post, New York Times, Fox News, The Nation, etc. Theres another interesting feature, the talk page, were if a fact is in dispute, you can challenge it, and have it changed.

        1. avatar Carl says:

          All I’m saying is that if you want to support with points, use the actual citations that are listed on Wikipedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so when I see that as a reference, I don’t even bother reading anymore. I don’t have time to filter through Wikipedia and figure out what is legit and what isn’t.

        2. avatar Totenglocke says:

          So what you’re saying is that you’re too lazy to do a bit of research on your own and pull up the article on Wikipedia and then follow the aforementioned citation links.

          Anyone can make up all sorts of claims that “The Washington Post wrote…” or “Economist Bob Jones said…”. This is the internet, where everything should be assumed false until YOU take the time to check up on it and see if there’s reasonable evidence that it’s true.

    2. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      Phil:

      You make some interesting points. For the record, I think that the way we reacted to the intel we had was legitimate. That we had bad intel, I think, was also understandable. Let’s put this in a real world context.

      We know that Hussein was a madman, willing to use gas and other chemical weapons against his own people. I don’t think any reasonable person regrets that he’s no longer in charge. However, we had a lot to do with keeping him in power. That bites, but often it’s better the devil you know, than the one you don’t.

      Saddam had a habit of “shooting the messenger” when he’d get bad news. He spent his country’s wealth on two things: palaces and weapons. Imagine when the guys he’d put in charge of his weapons programs had to go to him and tell him, “Um…we’re not doing so good. No nukes. No dirty bombs. Hell, we can’t explode a soufflé.” They knew what would happen. So they lied. A lot. And Hussein bought it. He bragged. And bragged some more. Rattled his little sabre that even he didn’t realize was made of pasteboard.

      Now add to this the fact that, thanks to geniuses like Senator Frank Church, we’d traded human assets (spook boots on the ground) for satellites and electronic surveillance. As we were to discover, there’s no substitute for people, especially those who are right in there, ear to the wall. We didn’t have enough (any?) real intel in-country, so we had to rely on what we DID have – innuendo, rumors, second-hand stories, and suppositions. Small wonder that we bought off on Saddam’s lies. Everybody did. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but Foresight is a lot harder to come by. It’s easy to armchair quarterback this thing. But playing first string is several orders of magnitude more difficult. Also, keep in mind we DID find evidence of chemical weapons, and evidence that those weapons had been moved. I suspect that there WERE some “weapons of mass destruction” that made their way across the border, or onto the black market. This makes too much sense to dismiss out of hand.

      So I’m gonna cut Bush & Co. some slack here. In fact, I think you can make a great case for the concept that we won the war – and are busy losing the peace. Our military is the greatest fighting force on the face of the Earth. But they make lousy cops. They’re not trained for it. And it’s a thankless job. If you wanna pillory Bush, THAT’S an area in which they are vulnerable. The Middle East understands but one thing: the projection and use of overwhelming force. They respect that. They fear it. When you go in and try the “kinder and gentler” crap, they laugh at you and realize you’re a paper tiger. I fault Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for not having a solid plan to implement after we’d won. And I fault them for giving over to those who demanded we pay more attention to “style” over “substance.” When you fight not to win, but to a draw, it’s not a workable strategy. THAT is the real problem here. Regardless of how or why we got in this war, winning it is the only way we’re gonna get out without having to go right back in again. And because we pissed around for so long, I’m afraid we no longer have the national will to win.

      1. avatar Phil says:

        I hear what you’re saying Brad, but I’m looking for consistency with what this forum is trying to achieve for personal defense. There can be distinctions between self defense/castle doctrine and national defense but the foundation will be very similar if there is to be any moral high ground.

        We study police and private use of weapons to better understand the right and wrong of those circumstances and how to avoid mistakes. We authorize the government to act on our behalf and it is our responsibility to assure it acts properly and within the limits of that authority. We are accountable, and by extension, our government is accountable. If not, what is the objective of this forum?

        1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

          I think TTAG is pretty consistent in our message. We try our best to tell the truth about guns. We try to limit political discourse to gun-related matters. It’s pretty easy to make a logical connection between the events of 9/11 and guns, because it changed so much in this country, from our laws to our perceptions of the world around us.

          As you’ll note from our ATF Death Watch series, we’re all about government accountability. So I’m not sure what you’re getting at here about the objective of this forum. Care to enlighten me?

        2. avatar Phil says:

          The objective part was rhetorical. I appreciate your scrutiny of F&F. The whole Iraq cakewalk or quagmire perspective misses the point. That they would pay for their liberation with oil money not squandered by a tyrant misses the point. We continue to kill too many people and make too many new enemies. There’s a problem with what we are doing. I’m not offering answers. I’m just planting seeds for anyone other than the kill em all let god sort them out crowd.

        3. avatar BambiB says:

          What 9/11 changed in America…

      2. avatar BambiB says:

        We didn’t have enough (any?) real intel in-country, so we had to rely on what we DID have – innuendo, rumors, second-hand stories, and suppositions. Small wonder that we bought off on Saddam’s lies. Everybody did.

        Incorrect. Ron Paul for one decried the idea of going to war based on innuendo, rumors, second-hand stories and suppositions. In fact, if we’d listened to him in 2002, we could have saved ourselves a trillion dollars and over 5,000 American lives.

        Also, keep in mind we DID find evidence of chemical weapons, and evidence that those weapons had been moved. I suspect that there WERE some “weapons of mass destruction” that made their way across the border, or onto the black market.

        No question there were chemical weapons. But it wasn’t until the runup to the Iraq war that I ever heard them classed as “Weapons of Mass Destruction”.

        Look, nukes are easy. You can take out a large city with one and they leave lots of nasty stuff around that can kill people for years. Biological weapons are clearly WMD. Once released, there’s no guarantee that the killing will stop in a city, a country or even a continent.

        Nukes and Bio-weapons are (generally) strategic weapons. They operate on a large scale.

        But chem weapons are tactical theater weapons. During my time in the military, they were never classified as WMD. Doing so after the Iraq invasion was almost obligatory. They didn’t find nukes or bio-weapons, so whatever they did find must, of course, have been the WMD they were looking for (out of political necessity).

        Don’t you just love Big Brother?

        And by the way, does the US make it policy to attack EVERY country with WMD? (If so, I can’t wait for us to attack France!) Or do we just go after the ones that can’t defend themselves against us and which have lots of oil? (Which would explain why we hit Iraq and NOT North Korea.)

      3. avatar BambiB says:

        By the way, someone was predicting the terrorist attack years before it actually happened and spelling out the reasons why it was going to happen. I know you prefer to conjure your own reasons for the attack – but for someone to see the attack coming and spell it out gives them more credibility than anyone who comes along and assigns their personal beliefs as causation after the fact.

        http://runronpaul.com/interest/ron-paul-predicted-911/

        He’s been right about a few other things too. The sub-prime housing collapse. The cost of the wars. The effect of debt.

        Must be misery for someone you hold in such low regard to be right so often.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    We’re in a war, people, and some of you need to pick a side. I lost friends in the WTC on 9/11, so to anyone who doesn’t care, I say with all due respect: go fuck yourself.

    When this war is over, we can get on with the business of punishing the innocent, promoting the guilty and praising the uninvolved. Until then, all the navel gazing must stop.

    1. avatar matt says:

      Who cares if your friends died, they were going to do die anyway. If they had been shot, would you be calling to repeal the 2nd amendment? If they died in a auto accident, would you be calling for us to go back to horses and bicycles? Read my post above with the Bin Laden letter, we started the war decades ago, 911 was just a counter attack.

      1. avatar Charles5 says:

        Sir, in America we all have the right to free speech, which includes the expression of an idea no matter how just or profane it might be. This is an essential tenant of the Constitution, of which I am sure you are aware, so I will not bore you with instruction I am sure you have already acquired. However, you should remember that any idea or opinion, no matter how just or right, loses all credibility if it is defended in a manner that is devoid of class, respect, and honor. To make such a needlessly cruel statement as “who cares if your friends died” is indicative of your total lack of sensitivity and charitableness, which is only overshadowed by the gross absence intellectual tact and respect. While I fully respect your right to think and say what you choose, I am forced by your behavior to dismiss your opinion as irrelevant. I’m sure you will have some retort that you “could care less what I think.” And that is just fine. You are entitled to say and think that. But, I ask you; what is the point of arguing an opinion if the manner in which you argue immediately disparages anyone from considering your point of view? It seems quite self defeating. You want to shame the victims of 9/11 and say that their own actions led to their demise, almost implying that they were deserving of their fate. If such is the case, then you are just as guilty as anyone else, as are your parents, your grandparents, and so on and so forth. If you believe that America has brought this upon herself, fine. But today, it is not they that should be ashamed, it is you. You ask “who cares?!?!” I care.

        I do not know what kind of man you are, but your carriage here can be interpreted as nothing other than the ranting of a sad, pathetic little man. I could respect your opinion if you only had the decency and maturity to extend charity and condolences to the friends and families of the fallen on this day of all days, even if you still believed that America’s foreign policy led to this tragic event. Nonetheless, if my duties ever required it, I would gladly give my life on the battlefields of Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other land to protect and preserve your right to spit upon my grave and the graves of those that perished on 9/ll. May God Bless you and I genuinely pray that you will find peace in this troubled time.

        1. avatar matt says:

          Regarding class and respect, im not sure if you haven’t noticed, but the internet is full of rage. The same could be said of Ralph who said things such as “go fuck yourself” and him implying that we shouldn’t bother to discuss this until the war is over. The same could also be said of you calling me a “sad, pathetic little man”. It is rather convenient that you ignored every single point I brought up in my posts, and rather focus only on my callousness.

          I am explicitly stating that the ‘victims’ of 9-11 were deserving of their fate. They directly funded and were complicit in the actions of the US government which provoked the attack. See the bin laden letter post I made above.

          Now instead of crying over my indifference, and engaging in ad hominem attacks, why dont you directly address the points i’ve made in my posts.

        2. avatar Charles5 says:

          I am not focused on arguing right now with the points you make. Much of the “facts” surrounding this debate are disputable from multiple angles and viewpoints. All I am saying is that your remarks are needlessly insensitive and callous on this day. There is another time and place to make your point. But not today, and not with so much incivility. It is counterproductive and only serves to undermine your argument. Some or all of your points may have a legitimate basis. However, you will not win over anyone taking your current approach. And if you are not trying to prove your point or convince someone else to embrace your beliefs, then you are just blowing hot air. At that point, I ask you a similar question to the one you have posited…who cares?

        3. avatar Charles5 says:

        4. avatar ScottH says:

          Absolutely spot on with all your comments Matt. Bravo for taking the time to express them here.

          Shame that most people simply can’t except that the US essentially set in motion 9/11 decades before it occurred.

          2 buildings gone, 3000 dead. And nothing more than the consequence for our foreign policy. Let’s ignore the lesson and crank it up a notch. Keep with the insanity until a dirty bomb takes out LA, Chicago, DC or NYC. Maybe then people will start to pull their heads out of their rear.

        5. avatar Charles5 says:

          I already know what that means, but thank you for the reference anyway. However, I am not using “ad hominem attacks.” If I was, I would have said, “Your opinion is wrong because you are mean.” Notice that I haven’t said anything about your actual viewpoint, only the manner in which you present it. Let me simplify what I have been trying to say. You are being ugly and nobody is going to take you seriously until you stop being ugly. If you want to believe that the victims of 9/11 were complicit, fine. But there are much more civil ways of articulating that point than saying “who cares if your friends died.” For example, you could have said, “while my sympathies are with the families and friends of those lost on 9/11, the reality is that America’s long standing foreign policy led to this attack, which was retaliatory in nature.” I am not saying that I agree or disagree with you, only that there is a better way to express your opinion.

          Incidentally, your tone reminds me of Westboro Baptist Church.

        6. avatar matt says:

          “However, you will not win over anyone taking your current approach.”
          Really? Personally I doubt anyone is going to change their point of view due to the comments on an obscure gun related blog. But if you think i’m the only one who thinks these things, ScottH said “Absolutely spot on with all your comments Matt.”

          Once again, youve ignored every single point I brought up, and instead cry crocodile tears because I wont call the fallen heros. You’ve all ready made the point that you think that i’m insensitive over and over again, and i’ve repeatedly admitted to it. Now instead of repeating the same thing over and over again, please directly address the points I brought up.

        7. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Wait wait wait, you just said that an ad-hominem attack would be saying “You’re wrong because you’re mean” and then follow up with “No one will listen to anything you say because you’re mean”. I think you need to re-read that whole ad-hominem attack thing. =)

        8. avatar Charles5 says:

          *sigh* Ok, apparently I’m not being clear enough. What I am trying to say is that people (as in people other than myself) might dismiss his arguments because of his tone. I am not saying that they should, only that they most likely would. I did not say that I thought his points were invalid because of his tone or that nobody else would agree with him. I am NOT using ad hominem, but OTHER people may. Don’t give them a reason to use ad hominem; then your argument can be judged strictly on the merits of your points. All I am trying to say is if you want people to listen, be polite, irrespective of the topic or position. Would you listen to anything I say if I repeatedly used callous insults?

        9. avatar Totenglocke says:

          “Would you listen to anything I say if I repeatedly used callous insults?”

          If you had valid reasoning behind your points, yes – even if those insults were directed at me.

        10. avatar Charles5 says:

          Then I applaud you, sir, because you are one of the few. Still, you and I both know that “valid points” can be pretty subjective at times. Incidentally, I do agree that America has brought a significant portion of foreign hostility upon itself. Sadly, most Americans are completely ignorant of what is really going on.

        11. avatar Brad Kozak says:

          Matt, I’d like to directly address ONE of your points in your post. You are one more rash comment away from being banned permanently from this site.

          You have been warned.

        12. avatar matt says:

          You didnt address a single point other than pointing out the obvious. Why don’t you go read Bin Laden’s letter and do a article directly addressing the points he brought up? It surely will be easy if i’m as wrong as you say I am.

          How are my comments stating the ‘victims’ got what they deserved any different than those who have advocated we attack other nations in response? They killed 3k of our citizens, we’ve killed millions of theirs though warfare and foreign policy well before 9-11, and countless more since.

          Regarding bans, have you heard of DHCP or proxies?

        13. avatar Totenglocke says:

          So Brad, what you’re saying is that everyone must tow the GOP party line with a good “SIEG HEIL!” and support the countless wars the US continually starts for no reason other than to impose its will on others, then get mad when those countries want revenge?

          I’m sure that you’ll try to claim some bullshit like “We’re liberating them” – how would you feel if the Chinese decided to “liberate” the US from what they view to be a bad political and socio-economic system? You’d be furious and want revenge – yet you refuse to realize that that is EXACTLY why “the terrorists” hate the US and are attacking us.

          Oh, and on another note, your “No contradictory views or you’ll be banned!” crap is exactly why everyone despises people with moderation ability on forums – because it’s all people with self esteem issues wanting to feel big and bad by banning anyone who dares to disagree with them.

          I’ll be expecting your ban for having the audacity to stand up to you. I’m sure face to face though, you’re nothing close to being as tough as you act online.

        14. avatar Brad Kozak says:

          Totenglocke:

          We welcome a variety of viewpoints on TTAG. (Just ask MikeB or Magoo. Neither of them have been banned for speaking their minds, and they’ve been around for a while.) If we decide to ban Matt – or you – it won’t be for expressing your opinion, but for generally acting like an ass and flaming everyone who disagrees with YOU. It’s not rocket science.

          If you’d like to read my thoughts on 9/11, I’d encourage you to read my post: 9/11. Never Forget. Doubt I’ll sway you, but I have another perspective on why they attacked, and I’d rather not have to retype it here. (WordPress is great at most stuff, but this message threading gets to be a little narrow, if you know what I mean.)

          Now, play nice and get over yourself – or join the TTAG History Team. Your choice.

        15. avatar matt says:

          Have you bothered to read any of the other comments here? Plenty of other people have been acting like an ass, resorting to name calling and logical fallacies, simply because they disagree with us.

          The problem here is our viewpoints on the fallen are more offensive to you than Magoo’s on gun ownership. If you were truely were interested in banning people solely because they were acting like an ass, then you would have threatened half the posters here, instead you only threaten those who you dont agree with.

        16. avatar Totenglocke says:

          That’s funny, I’ve read most (not all) of the posts made by Matt on here and it seems to be the “GO AMURRRICA!” people who are doing the flaming (not that I necessarily agree with everything Matt has said).

          The only thing that I’ve seen Matt do is dare to say what he thinks. Do I think that the people who died in the WTC “got what they deserved” like he does? No (well, a part of me wants to because NYC is filled with such utter scum, but that’s a small part). However, him merely saying his view of that is not “flaming” or anything of the sort. Him saying “who cares if your friends died” is not flaming – it’s a legitimate point. People like Ralph want to deify these people just because they died in a particular time and place, yet they don’t care about the thousands of people who die every day in the US of various other things.

          Frankly, if you don’t like that I’ll voice an opinion that’s not popular and call me an “ass” just because I dare to think for myself instead of following a particular party line and you choose to ban me, I’m not going to be too upset. I’ve been banned before on sites, it’ll happen again. However, I won’t be bullied into lying and just blindly going along with what the masses say or sit silent when someone says / does something idiotic. I’ve seen plenty of posts by people who write for the site, yet out of all the times I’ve seen someone threaten to ban people, it’s always seemed to be you. Maybe you’re the one who needs to get over yourself and realize that being a bully is no way to make friends or allow for actual discussion of ideas on a site. You can try to claim that I’m “angry”, but I only respond as such when someone is unjustly harassing a person who’s done nothing wrong (such as Matt). It’s a matter of upbringing I suppose – I was always taught to stand up to bullies (and lay them on their ass, but it’s been years since I’ve had to do that). As that old saying goes “I might not like what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it”.

        17. avatar Brad Kozak says:

          You’re both wrong. (Big surprise.) We try not to ban ANYbody, especially those who disagree with us. Makes for a lively and more interesting site. But we will not tolerate personal attacks, nor will we tolerate threats and intimidation tactics.

          Totenglocke, I’m not sure if you’re aware, but I’m not just some guy off the street. I’ve been with TTAG since day one. I’m the webmaster and one of the admins around here. Part of my job is to ride herd on you and the other commenters around here, and make sure everyone plays nice.

          You guys are not playing nice.

          Disagree all you want, but if you persist in flaming, you’ll be doing it somewhere else.

        18. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Since it wouldn’t allow me to reply to your other comment, again – how is disagreeing with you flaming? You’ve yet to provide any evidence of name calling or insults (from me or Matt, the others who share your view have done a decent amount of that without any threats to ban them). The closest thing that you can call to that is me pointing out that you act like a bully. If it bothers you that your actions come across in such a way, then you should reconsider who you interact with others instead of getting mad at someone for pointing it out to you.

          No one made “threats, personal attacks, or intimidation tactics”, except you threatening to ban people who don’t share your view. Or do you really consider me saying “Go ahead and ban me for disagreeing with you, it won’t bother me” to be “intimidation”? It’s just a simply fact that A) I have a busy life, so I’m not going to miss reading one gun site out of the thousands that exist B) the discussions on here are usually nothing particularly lively and C) if you would really ban someone for disagreeing with you, that’s not a site I want to support anyways.

          Though now that I re-read what I wrote, I suppose you thought my comment about being raised to stand up to bullies and lay them on their ass if necessary was “threatening”. It wasn’t intended in any such way (it’s a freaking website, what am I going to do, reach through the screen? =) Seriously, it’s a simple comment on how I was raised and has no reflection to this conversation other than why I’ve been standing up for Matt when people have been harassing him).

          I’d really appreciate some evidence of these claims of “flaming”.

        19. avatar Kerry says:

          I agree with Matt, that “the ‘victims’ of 9-11 were deserving of their fate.” Just like the Japanese at Hiroshima.

        20. avatar BambiB says:

          I recall saying on 9/11, 2001, shortly after the second plane hit, that it appeared that the people of New York had gotten what they had been voting for.

          Little did I know at the time how right I was.

        21. avatar karlb. says:

          Well said. +1

      2. avatar Silver says:

        Muslim pirates enslaved over a million white Christians from Ireland, UK, etc in and around the 18th century. I’m 1/4th Irish. Therefore, I should hate and kill any Muslim I can find since it would just be a “counter-attack” for something they started. Oh, but then there’s the crusades. Oh, but then there’s the initial fight over the holy lands. And so on and so on until we go back to two tribes of cavemen throwing rocks at each other. But by your logic, any retaliation is justified if the other side “started it first,” no matter what’s done, the magnitude, or the goal of the aggressor.

        What’s it like in your pathetic, childish black and white world? Does it keep you safe from having to think about the intricacies of reality and survival? Run along, kid, the adults are trying to talk. Go wither away alone, sad, and forgotten.

        Sociopathic freak.

        1. avatar matt says:

          “But by your logic, any retaliation is justified if the other side “started it first,” no matter what’s done, the magnitude, or the goal of the aggressor.”

          So if someone tries to rob you, its ok to kill them? Seeing as how most people here are pro-concealed carry, they would think so. The aggressor is likely robbing you because they have no other choice to put food on their table, and the magnitude of the response, taking their life is grossly disproportionate, but most people around TTAG would agree its ok. But once again, thanks for failing to address a single point I brought up.

          And BTW, what Muslim organization officially sanctioned that piracy?

        2. avatar Silver says:

          Ok, I thought you were just a 9/11 fanatic, but denying even the most basic self-defense crossed you into “fool not worth talking to territory.”

          And being your point was 9/11 was a counter-attack, I believe I addressed the ridiculousness of circular revenge just fine.

          Ok, I’m done with you, got things to do. You’ll undoubtedly construe this as a victory since most trolls do when people decide a conversation isn’t worth it anymore, so go ahead.

        3. avatar matt says:

          Today is my V-day 😛

        4. avatar Brad Kozak says:

          I’m sorry…are you admitting you have V.D.?

        5. avatar BambiB says:

          We have troops in their countries TODAY.

          If the Chinese were to invade America and establish bases, would you resent it, oppose it, fight it? Or collaborate?

    2. avatar Phil says:

      Ralph, my post isn’t about sides or navel gazing. It’s about the same issues as pertain to the focus of this forum. Truth, legality, defense, know your target, etc. When this war is over may be long after you and I are gone. I’m sorry for your friends, as I am mine, and I’ll continue to read your comments because I value both your insight and humor.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Phil, my post wasn’t addressed toward you, but toward the underage trolls who picked the wrong day to be brainless.

        1. avatar Phil says:

          I thought so but wanted to stear clear of the early turn for the worse contingent.

    3. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Hey, I lost friends in a car wreck around 2003 – does that mean that every year on that day I should demand that you give a flying fuck about them? No.

      We have more people in this country die each day from cancer, heart attacks, old age, car wrecks, etc than died on 9/11 – and it was TEN FREAKING YEARS ago. Do you see people still sitting around saying the world should grind to a halt every December 7th (Pearl Harbor)? No.

      There is no winning this war. We’ve spent a decade and trillions of dollars doing jack shit but pissing off another generation of Arabs who’ll say “Those American assholes came into my country, raped and murdered my family and friends, and I want to kill them”. I’m all for killing those who were involved – but you hit hard, fast, and brutal then you’re done.

      The only way to ever try to truly end terrorism is to pull out, end the US campaign of trying to be a global empire, and say “We’ll leave your countries alone – we’ll stop meddling in your internal affairs, we’ll stop butting in to your inter-country disputes that don’t pose a risk of violence to the US, and we’ll stop invading or bombing every country who glances at us the wrong way. However, if anyone attacks us, we will completely wipe your country off the map – we will bomb and napalm the entire country to the ground. We want peace, but we’re not afraid to destroy you if you initiate a fight”.

      The sad problem is that we don’t have any politicians with the guts to do this as well as plenty of people like you Ralph WANT war and WANT to violently impose your views on others (maybe not Americans, but you want to force people in other countries to live the way you think they should). As a result of the unjustified aggression of some and the incompetence / cowardice of others, we’ll never stop creating new generations of terrorists who hate the US for it’s continuous unjustified attacks.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Totenkopf, if they were your “friends,” they probably committed suicide.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Ah yes, make childish insults instead of trying to refute my points. The true mark of a person with ground to stand on, eh? =)

        2. avatar Buuurr says:

          geez, Ralph. You seeing these guys or something? They know you pretty well after just a few posts. They seem to have it all figured out really. Thanks for the laughs guys. Some of you prove my grandfather right just by opening your mouths.

  5. avatar Tom says:

    What I wonder is if the last 10 years or so have reversed the upward momentum of the pacifist thinking that guns are bad. It seems like a lot of the anti-gun arguments arose in the last 50 years, generally adjusting the social contract to advise just giving the criminal what he wants to try to avoid further harm, rather than resisting. Anti-gun laws proliferated.

    The terrorist apologists have asked Americans to consider the reasons why Muslims might harbor grievances against us, if not commit outright crimes against us, and how we might cause less offense in the future. It seems that those pleas have limited appeal. In the same way that most Americans see no moral equivalence between our use of force and that of Al Qaeda, more people also starting to see that there is a significant difference between a law-abiding citizen protecting herself or her family with a gun, and a criminal using a gun to harm people. We now see concealed carry in 49 of 50 states, and gun banning measures get no traction in Congress. A quick check of their stock prices shows that both Ruger and Smith & Wesson have outperformed the S&P 500 for the past 10 years.

  6. avatar Metal Mike says:

    I personally thought that the article did a good job of pointing out what it was trying to point out, that goverment failed to prevent the attack even though it was fully capabile of doing so. It is saying that anyone who trusts their saftey and over all well being to another person, or in this case the government, is suffering from their own ignorace.

    As for the the douche that goes by matt, screw you. If my understanding is correct, you seem to be trying to defend the pure evil that is al qeada and the taliban with your quote of bin laden’s letter. They view any non-muslim as a sub-human because they make a free choice with reguards to their personal beliefs. They are the ones who are trying to exterminate the jews and take over their rightful land. They oppress the people of the countries they occupy. Those organizations are evil.

    Remember that they started this, reguardless of location. If we are there trying to defeat them, it is because they need to be defeated. Those organizations prey on the poor nations because it is easy to take over with next to no resistance. They thrive in places with very little to no individual freedoms (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.) and are the cause of the injustices in those places. They tried to affect us or destroy us and failed, simply because we are a nation of individuals (for now) who refuse to take any act of war lightly and strive to defeat evil because it is the right thing to do.

    1. avatar matt says:

      ” you seem to be trying to defend the pure evil that is al qeada and the taliban with your quote of bin laden’s letter. They view any non-muslim as a sub-human because they make a free choice with reguards to their personal beliefs. ”
      Al Qeada isnt an organization, its a term coined by the state department to describe organized non-state combatants. They call their groups by other names, even Mujahideen is a generic term. Seems like you consider Muslims to be sub-human/pure evil just because they made a free choice with regards to their personal beliefs.

      “They are the ones who are trying to exterminate the jews and take over their rightful land. ”
      Exterminate, no. Also it isnt their rightful land, Britain conquered it and then gave it to the jews. Muslims and Jews lived side by side relatively peacefully before Israel even existed.

      “They oppress the people of the countries they occupy. Those organizations are evil.”
      Really? And the US isnt oppressing people? If were not oppressing the people then why the need for troops? Why have we killed millions of civilians through warfare and foreign policy?

      ” If we are there trying to defeat them, it is because they need to be defeated. Those organizations prey on the poor nations because it is easy to take over with next to no resistance. ”
      What nation did they (the Muslims) take over with next to no resistance? Have you ever heard of the Crusades?

      “They thrive in places with very little to no individual freedoms (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.)”
      How about domestic terrorists? Fort Hood shooting or Oklahoma city bombing for example. Plenty of freedom here, right, but yet somehow we grew our own terrorists.

      “They tried to affect us or destroy us and failed, simply because we are a nation of individuals (for now) who refuse to take any act of war lightly and strive to defeat evil because it is the right thing to do.”
      They succeeded, we were stripped of our rights. And what about the civil war raging in Mexico? They killed our border patrol agents, and we took it lightly and haven’t done anything of significance in retaliation.

      1. avatar Metal Mike says:

        No, personally i do not give a rats ass what anyone believes. I know most muslims feel the same as i do, however these factions do view us that way. I’m also pretty sure the jews have occupied jerusalem long before anyone else so yes it is thier rightful land long before we had to give it back to them. I listed the places they control and infect you even quoted what I said you douche. You have a very wrong definition of oppress if you believe we are oppressing other nations than oursleves. Fact of the matter is that if we were oppressors, half of the world would be under our control, however its not becasuse every nation we have had military actions in, we have liberated not oppressed. Lastly, while yes there are domestic terrorists that does not automatically give a pass to the other foreign terrorists that have delcared war on us.

        You don’t even know what you are talking about. You are trying to paint the USA as oppressors who are out to kill muslims everywhere, yet you feel that we need to retaliate against Mexico? That is a completely seperate issue. 9/11 was an attack on us for our supposed acts of oppression and way of lives. The Mexico issue is a tale of government corruption, drug cartels, and a United States government that is making poor choices with questionable motives.

        While the the government may have failed to prevent the attack due to incompetence, it does not mean they are at fault for the act. The blame lies on the evil men that planed the attack and carried it out. Saying otherwise is the same logic that gun grabbers use when talking about “gun violence.” Such as placing the blame on the firearm use rather than the evil indivudal who is intent on harm.

        1. avatar matt says:

          Wow, calling me a Retard, it must have been hard to come up with that.

          Muslims dont control Iraq or Afghanistan, the US military does. The civilian populations of both want us out.

          If you dont think the US military is oppressing other nations, can you explain Abu Ghraib, or the extra-judical arrests/killings of civilians?

          Half the world is under our control.

          I never said we should retaliate against Mexico, I was pointing out flaws in your logic.

          “The blame lies on the evil men that planed the attack and carried it out. Saying otherwise is the same logic that gun grabbers use when talking about “gun violence.” Such as placing the blame on the firearm use rather than the evil indivudal who is intent on harm.”
          The individuals who attacked us died, we’ve continue to wage war against civilians of foreign nations in response for a decade.

        2. avatar Metal Mike says:

          I no longer have to say anything. You take delight in others pain. Your comments have proven this to me. Also, all of your “intellegent” remarks have led me to one conclusion: I will laugh when you are a victim because you probably did deserve it, just like you claim everyone in 9/11 did right?

        3. avatar matt says:

          You’ll laugh at me when I become a victim? My posts have been about how the ‘victims’ got what they deserved because they choose to sit back, do nothing and become victims. I advocated fighting back. If you fight back then its impossible to become a victim, only a winner or loser.

    2. avatar BambiB says:

      Remember that they started this, reguardless of location.

      Would you like to buy a clue?

      http://runronpaul.com/interest/ron-paul-predicted-911/

  7. avatar Brad Kozak says:

    Here’s an interesting factoid for you: In the entire history of America, since movies became a medium and a cultural means of communication, there has been only ONE movie banned in this country. Not Birth of a Nation with it’s glorification of the Klan. Not any politically-incorrect movie glorifying child porn, rape, white slavery, drugs, or sex. Nope. The only movie to be banned in America was aired but once on ABC. It was called “The Path to 9/11” and it basically set forth what happened in the run-up to 9/11, as discussed in the 9/11 Commission Report.

    Before it aired, the filmmakers were forced to edit some of the more controversial scenes, which explained how the Clinton administration had willfully overlooked opportunities to get Bin Laden, and had hamstrung the FBI and CIA, preventing them from sharing intel. It also took the Bush administration to task. On the whole it was a VERY balanced look at 9/11. It has never been released on DVD, nor has it been aired again. It’s locked up in the ABC vaults, and the best efforts by the filmmakers and others have not been sufficient to get ABC to release it to the DVD market, nor air it again.

    Makes you wonder ‘why,’ doesn’t it?

    1. avatar matt says:

      Its not a movie, it was a TV miniseries. It wasnt banned if it was aired. And if you really want you can watch it on youtube. There are far better 9-11 conspiracy theories, read Crossing the Rubicon by Mike Rupert.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#United_States
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11

      1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

        I’m fully aware that the show was aired ONCE on ABC. But ABC has refused to release it on DVD or rebroadcast it.

      2. avatar Brad Kozak says:

        Oh, and if you expect us to believe anything you say, you might want to come up with something with a wee bit more credibility than Wikipedia.

        1. avatar BambiB says:

          …come up with something with a wee bit more credibility than Wikipedia.

          *sigh*

          From the guy who claims to read bin Laden’s mind.

          Brad, Wikipedia is better documented and certainly more reliable than are you.

        2. avatar Brad Kozak says:

          I don’t make a claim to be a reference source. Wikipedia does. Those who rely on it for accuracy deserve what they get.

        3. avatar BambiB says:

          There you go again, Brad. Another unfounded implication. Where is your evidence that Wikipedia is any less reliable than YOUR “information source” of choice?

          I’ve found that Wikipedia is usually pretty good about providing citations for assertions. Conversely, in everything I’ve read that you’ve posted in these discussions, I cannot recall a single reference.

          For example, you have asserted that the 9/11 attacks were because of our culture. Those who planned the attacks say it’s because of our interference in their countries and theft of their natural resources. I provided the citation: bin Laden’s letter to America. You provided… nothing.

          Now you denigrate Wikipedia, implying that it is an unreliable reference. Yet as has been pointed out, Wikipedia provides references for those who wish to fact check, and has a mechanism for correcting errors.

          Where is your fact-check, Brad? Where are your citations? What’s the mechanism for correcting you, Brad?

          I think it’s time to face up to the reality that you are not fact-oriented. You are opinion oriented… and blinkered to contradictory factual information.

  8. avatar tdiinva says:

    Overall a very disappointing post. It reveals Robert’s misunderstanding of the role of government in a Constitutional Republic that is on the same level as someone like Magoo. Government is a collective enterprise that provides for society’s public goods. The General Welfare clause is not about providing an individual citizen with a check from the government. It is about guaranteeing that society functions. The provide for a common defense clause means just that — to ensure that nation survives in a hostile world. Not only does provide for a common defense not mean that you as an individual are protected by the government, it means that the government can deprive you of your liberty — indeed your life –through compulsory military service to insure it. This fact is embodied by the Second Amendment, the Militia Act and the draft law. Since there have been no mass casualty attacks against the United States since 2001 I would say that the Government has met its common defense responsibilities.

    The idea that 9-11 was a singular failure of the government to protect the nation is a display of historical ignorance. The 9-11 failure is dwarfed by the Japanese attack on Hawaii and the Philippines in December 1941. At the time of Pearl Harbor Manila was as much a part of the United States as Honolulu or indeed San Francisco. The Philippines were occupied by the Japanese for three brutal years. By the end of the war Manila lay in ruins and 100,000 American civilians died during its liberation. That is 40 times the number of Americans killed at Pearl Harbor. I guess we should have stopped fighting once the number of dead hit 2500. Hell using that logic we should done nothing about Hitler because there were no German’s at Pearl Harbor.

    finally, the notion that gun rights have anything to do with 9-11 is absurd. I wouldn’t have been any safer in my Pentagon office on 9-11 if I had my entire gun collection next to my desk. Nor did my guns keep me safe a year later when the DC snipers were on the lose even though I carried every day I could and by the end of it I had a loaded rifle (illegally) in my car. It certainly didn’t help my office mate who was murdered by Malvoux and Mohammad. I don’t know if she was carrying but I do know she had guns and knew how to use them.

    1. avatar Silver says:

      I think the gun rights point was to parallel the “can’t happen to us” mentality of pre-9/11 America with the “can’t happen to me” mentality of civilians who think police are enough, not argue that guns could’ve prevented 9/11.

      I get what you’re saying though.

    2. avatar Magoo says:

      @tdiinva: I don’t know why you had to drag me into this. I’d just as soon steer clear of this discussion, which began on a completely asinine note and rapidly devolved from there.

      However, I find myself far more in agreement with your remarks here than anything Farago wrote. Actually, in a casual reading I can’t disagree with a word you wrote. Don’t worry. I’m sure we can find plenty to disagree about down the road.

      1. avatar RuffRidr says:

        “which began on a completely asinine note and rapidly devolved from there. ”

        And you don’t know why you were dragged into it? Really?

  9. avatar Jim says:

    @Ralph

    We aren’t in a war, the Federal government is. Nobody bombed us for our “freedoms” or any other idealistic abstraction.

    America was/is viewed by many Muslims as a colonial power with military bases in their land. But even they differentiate between government and populace. Muslims worldwide expressed condolences to the families of 9/11 dead.

    Instead of bleating the bugle to call for more war you should take the advice of George Washington and avoid foreign entanglements. Go back to Tel Aviv if you really get off on bombing poor folks for the actions of a very select few.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Go back to Tel Aviv? Thanks for exposing yourself for what you are.

      1. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

        You’re right on target Ralph, this fool just showed us his true colors. I was very tempted to do some serious flaming, but I like it here.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      You’re right Jim, It’s all because of the Jews.

      Well except maybe for Sudan.
      So, yeah, except for Sudan It’s all because of the Jews.

      But then there is Nigeria, so except for Sudan and Nigeria it’s the fault of the Jews

      There is the problem of Kashmir, so except for the Sudan, Nigeria and Kashmir the Jews are to blame.

      Oh, and Muslims are murdering Buddhists in Southern Thailand so except for Sudan, Nigeria, Kashmir and Thailand it’s those pesky Jews again.

      Well, non Muslims in Indonesia are always getting murdered so, Jim you are right, except for Sudan, Nigeria, Kashmir, Thailand and Indonesia those awful Jews are the problem

      I almost forgot about the Philippines, so excepting Sudan, Nigeria, Kashmir, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines those dirty Jews are the problem.

      How can I forget about Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood murders Coptic Christians so in the end despite Sudan, Nigeria, Kashmir, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Egypt the Jews are the cause of all our problems…

      If we just get rid of these Jews the world would be a better place.

      A hearty Sieg Heil to you Jimbo!

    3. avatar BambiB says:

      Good advice that we’ve been getting… and ignoring… for years (since 1998 at least).

      http://runronpaul.com/interest/ron-paul-predicted-911/

      Notice especially the July, 2001 warning.

  10. avatar Kerry says:

    If one person can say to another, “You made me do this”, and not be held accountable either criminally, nor in the after-this-life, there is no free will. What would my neighbor’s reaction be if, after his wife is killed by a burglar I said to him, “Well, she brought it on herself”? (Some here will see I am brushing up against the problem of the one and the many.) But the principle holds. Is the abuser of battered women absolved because he said before the pummeling, “Don’t make me hit you”? He may genuinely believe this to be the facts of the case. What will the police do? The country prosecutor? Regarding Sept. 11th, I strongly suggest reading the book, The Looming Tower, al Queda and the Road to 9-11, by Lawrence Wright. If the names Sayud Qutib, the Salafists, et. al. are unfamiliar to you, read it. And I also strongly suggest the book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack by Marc A. Thiessen, wherein we learn that the purpose of “enhanced interrogation” is not to extract information, but to make the ‘detainees’ cooperative. (You just might be amazed to read about Al Masri who, after being waterboarded, and therefore fulfilling what he saw as his duty to “Allah” to resist as fully as possible, was relieved of the moral burden of uncertainty as whether he had or not, became extremely cooperative and said, “You must do this to all the brothers”) You will be disappointed to find that left out of the book were the incidents at Gitmo where Miss Makita herself drilled holes into skull, elbows, shins and knees, eyes were gouged out and fingernails pulled off, etc. etc. For that you’ll have to read different authors.

  11. avatar Patrick says:

    From my window, I cans see the “Freedom” tower. It’s lit up in red, white and blue at nights. It’s so funny how people who don’t live here are so passionate about it… Thousands of Americans die every day from cancer and heart disease. Nobody cares. Ten years ago, some innocent people died in a horrible way. So we went to war (for profit) and killed thousands of other innocent brown people (for oil). If anyone in the “conservative” party actually read what Jesus wrote, they’d cry. 2A has nothing to do with 9/11. It’s just the powerful taking what they will, and the poor suffering what they must. End the wars. Time to move on. God bless.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Not a bad post other than your horrible irrational “we went to war for oil” comment. Yes, I know, $3.50+ for a gallon of gas sucks, but it’s all a matter of supply and demand. If we went to war for oil (which I’d support a lot more than our current waste of money wars), oil firms would be receiving cheaper oil and we’d have cheaper gas. The cost of oil went up primarily because China finally got to the point where people other than the elite few can now afford cars – and just like the automotive boom in the 50’s in the US, people in China are rapidly buying cars….cars that use gas….which comes from oil….meaning that there’s higher demand for a set supply (partially because of the OPEC cartel, partially because our moronic government won’t let us drill for oil on our own soil)…meaning that the equilibrium point where supply and demand are equal shifts, which results in higher prices.

      There is no evil conspiracy here, just basic math.

      1. avatar Phil says:

        The basic math was done in the 1950’s Totenglocke. It sounds like you’re familiar with King Hubbert, Colin Campbell and Matt Simmons. I think you would also be interested in Jay Hanson’s old site dieoff.org The current OPEC has no control of its members and they have no reserve capacity to produce (they would if they could because they deficit spend just like we do). Beneath/behind politics and governments you’ll find fractional reserve banking. Among those who own the central banks you’ll find the object of your rage. Everything else is bread and circus.

      2. avatar BambiB says:

        Yes, I know, $3.50+ for a gallon of gas sucks, but it’s all a matter of supply and demand.

        Actually, it’s more a function of the devaluation of the dollar by the Federal Reserve.

        As Ron Paul recently pointed out, you can still buy a gallon of gas for a dime… a silver dime. In fact, the price of gas measured against gold or silver has gone down since the Fed came into existence.

        In one sense, you are correct – but it’s not increased demand for gas – it’s increased supply of dollars. (Like the 16 trillion the Federal Reserve conjured up and didn’t tell anyone about.)

  12. avatar IndyEric says:

    Y’all are ridiculous.

  13. avatar Kerry says:

    Further thought on the “brought in on them(our)selves” rejected Fortune Cookie fortune. So citizens of another country, to wit, Saudi Arabia, allegedly enraged by actions of the government of another different sovereign country, take it upon themselves to murder as many of that country’s citizens of whatever stripe and allegiance, and anyone else who was inside that morning, and Dorothy Alma deAraujo, and the rest, brought it on themselves how? Just living here? (A list: http://project2996.wordpress.com/). If this is a principle may any of us apply it the other way around? Hijack a B-2 for a visit to Riyadh?

    1. avatar matt says:

      They brought it upon themselves by funding and supporting the US gov’t. Read Bin Laden’s letter, its all spelled out.

      1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

        I’ve read Bin Laden’s letter. What makes you so sure he was telling the truth? I mean, the Koran states, in black and white, that it’s permissible for a Muslim to lie to a non-believer if it furthers the aims of Islam. Ever hear of “misinformation”? I find it interesting that you would take the word of Bin Laden at face value, but automatically dismiss anything that comes from the U.S. Government.

        1. avatar BambiB says:

          What makes us think he was telling the truth?

          What makes you think he was lying?

          I imagine bin Laden was quite proud of his achievement – dealing a small amount of death back to America. I expect he was quite eager to say why he did what he did – to tell the world why America deserved what it got.

          And yet you pick that particular message as one where bin Laden must have been lying because, of course, he couldn’t possibly have been concerned about America’s invasions, murders, manipulation of governments and theft of natural resources.

          Just in case you don’t actually understand what you wrote, the Koran does NOT say, “Everything a Muslim says to a non-believer must be a lie.”

          Bottom line: There was no point in bin Laden lying about his motives.

          As for the America government – there’s every reason why it might lie about what it has done – as WikiLeaks’ releases show:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

          So, I’ve presented proof of what the American government has tried to hide from the American public and the world.

          Where is your evidence bin Laden lied about his motivations? Or should we be questioning YOUR motivations. After all, you’re Muslim aren’t you? No point in lying about it, after all, I’m a non-believer.

  14. avatar 6 says:

    @Matta (arabic for Matt)

    Matta , what you say makes sense from the “history is written by the victor” perspective…(sort of)…

    “If it isnt obvious all ready, I’m personally not a big fan of the community I live in”

    It is obvious.

    Maybe you should move.

  15. avatar 6 says:

    Matta has gone to bed giggling about how he’s kicked the beehive that is actually a sensible place to talk about personal defense/ 2a issues etc…

    He needs to be up early for week 3 of chemistry 104…

    and English 495 (he’s obviously home grown and very sneaky)…

    Back to what we are about…(and what Robert’s point was … I think….)_

    “Of more concern to this website’s readers, Americans applied the main lesson of 911—Big Brother can’t protect you from evil—to their personal circumstances. Despite declining crime rates, despite a larger, increasingly militarized police with expanded powers, tens of millions of Americans bought a self-defense gun. Millions more shifted their position on gun rights, supporting the right to own and/or carry a firearms for self-defense”

    I would say that this is true for me, – a fairly liberal medical student at the time of 9/11….now a Father, gun owner, CCW permit holder, etc…

    6

    1. avatar matt says:

      Lol @ matta, fyi i’m a white guy. Funny how your trying to stereotype anyone who doesnt agree with your viewpoints as a Muslim terrorist. And good job for failing to address any of the points I brought up, resigning yourself to your logical fallacies.

      1. avatar ScottH says:

        I wouldn’t worry too much about how you’re viewed here with those comments. You won’t get a response on your points. The mindset just can’t fathom 9/11 as retribution for years of sanctions that killed/starved millions in Iraqi innocents. Those lives just aren’t valuable enough to consider. As if there wouldn’t be consequences to bullying behavior? Anyone that naïve left? Anyway, you aren’t alone but I’d rather not argue with others on it. I thought the way many here do once upon a time. So much of the propaganda just doesn’t add up once you really start looking into it. But it’s a long road to the truth and longer if one is unwilling to question basic assumptions. So I don’t bother as I’d rather talk guns.

        BTW – I’m conservative, have served, been to Iraq and had close friends die. Personally, I think many here are just too darn afraid of peace to embrace it at all. They’ve never known it so the concept doesn’t enter consideration. And why think peace when Iran, Syria, etc are just a dirty bomb away from US troops invading…

  16. avatar Jim says:

    @Ralph and Tdiiniva

    Quit sidestepping the issues with your baseless charges. Islamic – American relations are the topic of discussion here.

    Give me one good reason why America should send her sons and daughters to die in more Middle Eastern wars. Give me one good reason why Likudniks should advise foreign policy. Give me one good reason why America should maintain an empire that inspires hatred and suffering.

    Maybe if our foreign policy maintained a more Washington-esque character, such violence could be avoided.

    But you will call peace “hateful” and will deride any mother who didn’t want her son to die for neoconservative nation – building.

    So yes, go back to Tel Aviv. Go back to Crawford Ranch. Go back to Camp David. Go back to wherever warmongers crawl out from. Your desert wars make Lady Liberty weep.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      You obviously are too dense to know when someone is making fun of you so I will be straight forward. Muslin extremism, in its latest incarnaiton, predates the existence of Israel and has nothing ot do with Jews. Where ever Islam interacts with others be they Jew, Christian, Buddist, Animist or something else Muslims rape, pillage and murder. When they cannot find someone else to murder they murder each other. It has nothing to do with the Jews or Israel. Just go back and brush up on Mein Kampf, the Protocols of the the Elders of Zion and play at being a stormtrooper.

      1. avatar Metal Mike says:

        @tdiinva +1

        I personally find it shocking and funny how everyone is taking islamic extrimist views or the view of bin laden at face value but so quickly dismiss their own countries word.

        While I understand that you should do your own research and form your own opinion and not rely on the government, but i do not understand taking the word of someone who is labeled as an evil terrorist by mulitple countries (including muslim countries). I don’t think these people are forming their own opinion based on neutral information. Instead, they seem to just be regurgitating what they have been told just like they say I am, only their info comes from a different source.

  17. avatar garynyer says:

    9/11 has shaped half of my life (I was 10). Its caused me to change my view about about both my country, my government, and the way I look at the world. As far as I can tell the wars, need to end, not because it’ll end terrorism(it wont those mindless fucks will continue devise reasons to attack and hurt other people), not because I care about those people, but because traditional wars can’t be fought this way. We are fighting an enemy that doesn’t drive tanks, or has thermal imaging sights. All it has is some poor dumb kid that they brainwashed and strapped a bomb to his chest and send him into a crowded mall.

    If by some of the logic of the people on here they should be killing Russians by the the thousands because many many many Arabs have been killed by AK-47s, Russian Tanks, And MIG fighters. Or going back in time and attacking the first life forms that fed off one another for inventing killing.

    Its the circle of violence that needs to end. Its the circle of you kill our people well kill your people, and so on and so fourth. Matt if we pull all of our soldiers and people out of the middle east, let Israel be conquered, and get our noses out of everyone else business do you really think that these people will honestly stop? Do you sincerely with all of your heart think that the leaders of those groups will relinquish their power, or the “foot soldiers” will just take off their suicide vests, and go back home? If you do you are a very very naive person.

    Stop painting whites and the west as the evil in the world. Stop trying to make me feel guilty of things that simply have nothing to do with me or my generation. I’ve never owned a slave, never put a Japanese person in an interment camp, never stolen and Indians land, and I’ve never launched a crusade into Muslim lands. I feel no guilt now or will I ever and nor will I ever apologize for anything that I did not do

    1. avatar ScottH says:

      if we pull all of our soldiers and people out of the middle east, let Israel be conquered, and get our noses out of everyone else business do you really think that these people will honestly stop?

      While not Mat, I’m going to take the time and answer. Nobody is being naive here or suggesting such a thing. If anything remaining so spread out, so involved around the world is naive and stupid. And no, the killing would not stop. Warring and regional conflicts would not cease. This has been true since the dawn of time and always will be so. Israel is more than capable of fending for itself. The US has been stopping Israel from taking action for quite some time. Frankly, if not the UN then the EU can deal with such regional issues. The needless loss of American life will however stop. The needless loss of American resources will stop. Without American soldiers overseas, no American lives are therefore lost . . . overseas. Same goes in Europe and any place else some regional conflict may erupt.

      The US should have 2, possibly 3 things in any country. First, an embassy to streamline commerce, promote exports and facilitate trade. Second, a consulate to promote tourism and help those visiting foreign lands. Third, possibly a naval base as we’d still have some need to protect commerce. That’s it.

      Stop painting whites and the west as the evil in the world. Stop trying to make me feel guilty of things that simply have nothing to do with me or my generation.

      Nobody is telling you to feel guilty about knowing your countries own stupidity. But don’t blindly chant USA! USA! USA! without recognizing that its only black and white to simpletons. There are consequences for the things we do. When we occupy other countries, impose sanctions that prevent medicines from entering, sanctions that cause death, famine and disease there might be consequences to those actions. People don’t tend to just allow themselves to be bullied for years on end without attempting some considerable retribution to even the score.

      The two towers, while horribly tragic are probably just the first of tragedies that we will face. With a little imagination it would be immensely easy to cause massive destruction and kill many people throughout the US. God help us if terrorists ever figure out how easy it is to derail trains, pump subways full of gasoline, drop explosives down into parades, shoot up schools, or smuggle items through Canada into the US.

    2. avatar BambiB says:

      …let Israel be conquered…

      By whom?
      Ever read about the “Six Day War”?

      Yes, times have changed since then. Israel’s enemies are more sophisticated – and Israel has over 300 nuclear weapons.

      Wait! Weapons of mass destruction! Must… attack… Israel!

      Oh wait. Do they have any oil?

  18. avatar Kerry says:

    There is no such thing as collective guilt. To believe in this, is to accept the reasoning the Third Reich gave for murdering the Jews, the same lies Stalin propagated, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and Bin Fish-food Laden. Human beings have free will, the power to love and the power to forgive. Our choices make us. And at the end of this life, we do not appear collectively, a vast naked crowd, before the Just Judge, but individually, tasked with giving an account. Read Christ’s letter to the crowds upon the mount, it is all spelled out. “IHS”

  19. avatar Jim says:

    @ Tdiiniva

    Again with the ad hominems. I warned you once about those already.

    My concern is not about Islam’s history dating back to its inception. My concern is about how and why it was channelled into competing with the Unites States of America.

    Quite frankly, there is nothing of value for America in the Middle East. Only oil companies, televangelists, neocons, and Likudniks will tell you otherwise.

    Islamic violence against America is not unprovoked. It is a reaction against perceived cultural, military, and economic aggression. 9/11 was a tragedy that could have been avoided if the aforementioned parties did not distort the political discourse here.

    Strict adherence to neutrality and liberty could have prevented this mess. It can still save America.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would disagree with you.

      If your point is that we should stay home so we won’t offend anybody why bring the Jews into it? (I am a German Lutheran by the way)
      That you choose to do so tells me and everybody else that you are neo-Nazi. After all it is not ad hominem to properly describe a person. Are you ashamed of your jew hatred. Frankly, I prefer the old fashion kind. They were up front in their Jew hatred. Be a man and say”I hate Jews even if there 9-11 never happened.”

      In the mean time a hearty sieg heil to you.

      1. avatar matt says:

        How does disliking the foreign and domestic policies of the state of Israel have anything to do with hating Jews? Following that logic, all Jews must be guilty of the atrocities committed by the IDF.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          I take this to mean you claim to be upset with the Israeli position on the so-called “Palestinian People.” (In the 1920 and 30s when the Colonial Office referred to the Palestinians they meant the Jews.) If we know one thing from the Arab Spring it is that the rest of Arab world couldn’t give two s**ts about the Palestinians. They only hate the Jews because their leaders have used Israel as a scapegoat and a cover for their own failings for the last 60+ years, Jew haters like you and Jim could care less about the these people either. You are both too cowardly to do the job yourself and you are merely hiding behind Hamas and the PLO to do your work for you. This makes you morally inferior to both the original Nazis and murders who lead Arab nations. They are at least willing to stand up and say what they want. I give you the same challenge I gave your buddy Jim. Man up and be a real Jew hater.

  20. avatar Jim says:

    @ Tdiiniva

    Lobby groups, neocons, Likudniks, and oil companies try to drag America into conflicts that do not benefit the American people.

    Your ethnicity is irrelevant to the discussion. Sadly the masses buy into all this jingoism rather eagerly. So the good hearted and poorly informed citizens roar with applause at every bomb dropped in the desert.

    You are rather determined to paint a peace activist like myself as some kind of monster. By equating calls for peace with “neo-nazis” you fan the flames of hate and war.

    Shalom, buddy. I hope you can be at peace with G-d knowing that you promote death.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      In the past 40 years I have yet to meet a “peace activist” who wasn’t just for the other side and it is clear that you are salivating at the thought of another 6 million.

      Adios and a hearty Sieg Heil my friend.

      1. avatar BambiB says:

        Ever meet a war monger who didn’t want to personally rip out the enemy’s carotid arteries with their teeth?

        Me either.

        So, would you personally do the honors on the next 100,000 innocent civilians the USG decides to butcher? Or at least explain why our government murdered the first 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians (reminding you that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11)?

        Does it even matter to you who you kill? Or how many?

      2. avatar ScottH says:

        Funny. Most of the ‘peace activists’ I’ve met these days have been at the VWF here in Stockton, CA. Veterans who’ve been there and know better. I’m a veteran, an American of Jewish decent, and would probably align myself here with BambiB, Jim or Matt’s comments (in varying degrees) over yours any day of the week.

        Maybe you ought to step beyond your own bias and stereotypes and address the points that have been made.

  21. avatar Orvil says:

    More popcorn, anyone? The TTAG testosterone is raging!

    Fandango didn’t address the effectiveness of the immediate CIA operations. Too bad.

  22. avatar Metal Mike says:

    My last post on this topic: I have seen numerous round and round arguing statements here on how one side provoked the other and it was a retaliation, which apperantly make the retaliation to the so called first retaliation unjust. Also, there has been a lot of the typical “we need to get our nose out of everyone’s business” crap too.

    What i am saying is that the arguing in circles about who attacked who is stupid. Fact of the matter is that it doesnt matter who was just or unjust first, because your logic that it is wrong for the US to retaliate in response to 9/11 would also suggest that the intial so called retaliation of bin laden in crue should also be unjust. Only that doesn’t support your point. Also, remember hindsight is something a person can have only after the fact.

    Secondly, I would like to point out that everyone saying that the US needs to get out of everyone’s bussines is in fact telling me and others what to do. It is the same as telling someone not to assert your view on anyone, which in turn you are asserting your view on them by saying that. It is an argument that doesn’t work. While i know that our all mighty government isnt the second comming of god and may or may not have our best intrests at heart at times, I still love what this country was founded upon and what it is about. I know that america now probably strays too far away (at least for my liking) of what was intended by our founding fathers, but i also know that their genious provides us a way back to that vision. And I know that our government is up to devious things right now (ie the ATF scandal), but I still believe that the american public still stands for good, freedom, and the wish for every individual to prosper in life. I am just sad to see so many here that feel that we are all peices of shit who terrorize others. Last time I checked, we are still the nation that created the single greatest government structure that was intended to free the individual, saved europe (and the world) from the nazi empire and defeated one of the most evil empires of all, the USSR.

    1. avatar BambiB says:

      I am just sad to see so many here that feel that we are all peices of shit who terrorize others.

      I think that for the most part, the American public is clueless. A tonue-in-cheek crticism of this is courtesy of Uncle Jay:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mrvfV_LAKE&feature=player_embedded

      Among Americans in the age group most likely to be sent to fight in Iraq (18-24), 60% could not find Iraq on a map of the world.
      Can you?
      http://www.yoel.info/world_outline_map_blank_public_domain_royalty_free.gif

      When I think of “pieces of shit” in America, I think of those who sent American soldiers to die in other countries for corporate profit. Pieces of shit like Johnson, Bush II and Obama and the gutless members of Congress who would not vote for a declaration of war, but voted to abdicate their responsibility and “authorize” the president to wage war.

      The American people don’t know what their government is doing. The American government no longer represents the People… it represents corporations (who are “people too” – at least, according to Romney).

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email