Good vs Evil? (Attacks on America)

Member Name: rabidsquirrel

Product:	Attacks on America
Date:	13/09/01 (34 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Might stop the Americans being so complacent about everything and putting people's lives at risk

Disadvantages: Loss of lives, Risk of WW3?

I admit being shocked when the World Trade Centre towers were attacked and eventually collapsed yesterday afternoon (morning, America's time) and the attack on the Pentagon was equally surprising. It is quite clearly pointless to talk about what could have been done to prevent so many fatalities, but America needs to take steps in order to ensure that such a disaster does not happen again. While if it wasn't for the group of fanatics who did this, there would be no deaths at all, the fact that these attacks caused quite so much devastation is down partly to the Americans.

For a start, why did two skyscrapers of this size manage to be completely destroyed so easily? The fact is that it is down to shoddy American construction. OK, there are other countries that construct much less stable buildings than the USA (Turkey, for instance, are real cowboys) but for a country that is supposed to be one of the most economically stable and powerful in the world, you would think that there would be some regulations preventing the construction of structures that size being built the way the World Trade Centre was built. I suppose I had better back this up with facts - I may not know much about construction, but for a 110-storey skyscraper to be built, you would expect that the structure would need to be able to take some punishment. The idea that only the outer walls were carrying the entire weight of the two towers is unbelievable. Considering that on each floor, as well, there would be offices, machinery, and hundreds of people including tourists, it is surprising that there weren't structural problems before this attack. The floors must, quite simply, have been sagging in the middle, and future structures must not follow the same design as these deathtraps did, if further lives are to be spared.

Secondly, how the hell did an airplane manage to crash into the side of the Pentagon? Isn't the area around this building meant to be restricted airsp
ace? Isn't the Pentagon meant to be the country's centre for their equivalent of the Ministry of Defence? Shouldn't the people watching the radars have been extra vigilant considering they had just seen two airplanes crash into the twin towers of the World Trade centre? The American public should be worried. The Pentagon should be one of the most secure area in the entire country, and yet some fanatics are able to crash a plane into the side of the building, effectively taking the piss out of America's entire defence system. If I lived in America, I'm not sure I would feel safe knowing that a group of terrorists can quite easily bring the country to its knees before the armed forces can even react.

In fairness to the USA, however, how exactly can you stop terrorists like the ones that destroyed the World Trade Centre from striking again? Even if the Americans had known about the hijacks before the planes had hit the towers, what could they have done? Shot the planes down? It would have saved more lives, granted. Their beloved World Trade Centre would still be standing today. On the other hand, they would have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent *American* civilians (and I emphasize the word American, as it has been seen from the past that they have had no qualms about killing innocent civilians from other countries. In the Gulf War, Muslim=target). However, they wouldn't have known the hijackers course of action anyway, the Americans had no idea, and would not have been able to get an idea, that the hijackers were suicidal bombers. The fact is, though, that once these hijackers are in the air, then there is no hope of stopping them. End of story.

Whoever was behind these attacks would not be able to repeat the strategy again in America. Security on domestic flights will never be as relaxed as it was before the incident. However, America is the type of place that will never become safe from this kamikaze-s
tyle terrorism. Even if hijacking is made impossible, terrorists will find other ways of blowing themselves up to cause the most mayhem. Sure, the terrorists can't bring weapons or explosives into the country, but "this is America" as Gerald Depardieu said in the film Godzilla. Just bring lots of money and buy whatever you need there. How about walking into Sears Tower strapped to enough explosives to make Hiroshima look like a campfire, pulling out a machine gun and shooting security before they get a chance to react, and then finally blowing yourself up. Or if you're looking for something a little less tricky, try standing on a railway track and the next time a train comes along, blow yourself up just as the train is about to hit you, blowing the train up at the same time. The point I am trying to get across is that this style of terrorism can never be stopped. Even if guns and explosives are made illegal in America (which will never happen) they will still be traded on the underground. I suppose they could stop all Muslims from getting into America, but one way or another, terrorists will still be able to smuggle their way into the country. Stopping terrorism is impossible.

But another thing that I feel I must add - this is a war of good versus evil? What? Are? They? Talking? About? I cannot believe that Bush actually said that. It sounds more like the slogan of an End-Of-Days-style Hollywood blockbuster than a serious comment made about the fight against terrorism. So they are evil because they, under the instructions of some leader, destroyed the World Trade centre killing thousands of civilians? Perhaps they are suffering from some kind of amnesia. Didn't they just say that this was an act of war? Perhaps I should jog your memories - what happened in the Second World War? Didn't thousands of British and American pilots fly over German cities and bomb the shit out of them? Wasn't Berlin in ruins by the end of the war? Don&
#39;t tell me they were all military buildings. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, anyone? About 200,000 Japanese civilians were killed then - makes this incident look like small potatoes really, doesn't it? And the pilots didn't even kill themselves dropping these bombs.

The fact that these terrorists killed themselves in achieving their aim suggests that they were obviously passionate about what they believed in. To them, they are the ones doing good, whereas the Americans are the evil ones. It's all a matter of perspective. I bet some of these terrorists have wives and kids too, I bet they behave like normal citizens in their own country. But the Americans don't want to see it that way. Of course, they're democratic and proud of it. Any other system is clearly wrong, and need to be shown the light. It's almost as if they believe that other cultures are subhuman and so need to be taught like animals, which is racist. Tony Blair himself said that we must fight against this evil for democracy, for civilization. So communist countries are not civilized, then. Obviously not, according to the Americans, who are almost hysterical about their hate for communism, even now. The fact is, the Americans, and to a certain extent, the British, cannot accept other cultures and other political systems. They cannot see that if a country is happy being communist, then they should be allowed to be communist. Clearly Muslims are happy with their religion as well. They have some practices that Westerners find a little unusual perhaps - the taking of more than one wife for example. But as this goes against Western laws, Muslims tend to come into conflict with people in the west.

But going back to yesterday's incident. It's easy to think that because they ended their own lives to cause total devastation, they are evil. They find it hard to identify with people who kill themselves for what they believe in, therefore they must be evil. However, what
both Blair and Bush need to decide is whether these attacks were acts of terrorism or acts of war. They can't be both. If they were acts of war, then the PM and the President are bloody hypocrites for thinking that killing civilians is evil. If they were acts of terrorism, then they should start treating them as such and stop moving their aircraft carriers over towards the Middle East as if they want to start a war proper.

But one final thought - if the USA is so goddamn powerful, how is it that three strategically crashed aircraft can bring the country to its knees? Perhaps the aim of these terrorists/fighters/whatever you want to call them was to show America that they might try to look like they are big and powerful with their cruise missiles and aircraft carriers, but beneath that exterior, the USA is as weak as any other country, if not more so because they are so complacent as they believe that they are invincible. And I think that aim was achieved quite successfully. If America at least want to reduce the chance of this sort of thing from happening again, they need to take some quite drastic steps immediately, including reducing the availability of guns and improving foreign policy.

I would like to take this point to express my sympathy for the families of those killed by yesterday's attacks, although I wouldn't be so hasty in blaming the people who hijacked the planes. Although terrorism/war caused deaths, shoddy construction methods caused so many deaths. The design of that building should never have been allowed to go ahead.

Summary: