Are we safe? Do you suppose so? Are we safer than we were before? OK, how about before 9/11? Bottom line answer? No, shit no.
Safe is nothing more than perspective. We only thought we were safe because nothing of this magnitude had ever happened before in the U.S. This was an actual attack on our soil.
Things like that just don't happen here, not to us! So I'll personalize a hypothetical situation almost everyone in America can identify with. Work with this -- you're alone on an unknown street in a bad-ass neighborhood around 2 AM. Are you safe? Do you feel safe? Highly doubtful. Now you're in that same situation except you have a .45 auto with two extra clips on your belt. Do you feel safe? I'd bet you would, but are you really safe? You really just don't know. It's all just a matter of perspective.
There was an incident in the early 60s involving the Russians, who at the time were our arch-enemies, which brought us literally to the brink of nuclear war. I bring this up as an example of our perception of 'safe'. How safe were we? A lot less safe than we knew, and we were still pretty scared. The government did not let on the absolute seriousness of the situation, but we were still plenty scared. So we were facing a nuclear holocaust, and we didn't even know how close we were. The government fixed everything though, no need to feel frightened, just climb under your desk, just as we practiced. That's right. The government told us that we could survive a nuclear attack if we would just listen to them and climb under our fucking desks. Yup!
So, how safe were we before 9/11? I felt that we were pretty safe, so how come now I feel like there is something the government is not telling us, as was the case in the aforementioned Bay of Pigs incident? I assumed that our Federal Government was serving its most important function, protecting our shores and the people within. I assumed that all flights were being monitored and that there were certain "no-fly" zones which were impenetrable lest an alarm would immediately sound and response would be swift. I assumed that certain areas of the country were probably better protected than others, as they would be primary targets. I assumed that New York City would be high on that list but also that Washington D.C. would be absolutely #1, impossible to penetrate, being the home of all government agencies including the president, vice president, etc. Who would have dreamed that someone could penetrate that space and hit the Pentagon?
Article comments
1 - Georgio
Excellent post and hell no we are not safer...Makes you wonder why they did not fly into the White House ..maybe they knew he is never home..
2 - Bob Jones
One reason to attack places like The Twin Towers is (even without goverment and media intervention), it scares the people. People are afraid to go to work.
If all government buildings were attacked, we would have a big loss - but it wouldn't scare the people in the same way, they wouldn't believe it was action against them but more of an overthrow of the the government.
The simplest answers are usually right, if that is the best evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy - that 'the terrorists SHOULD/MIGHT/COULD/MAYBE would have done this ... ' then its clear it probably wasn't an inside job.
3 - Deano
Actually I believe GWB was reading a book entitled "My Pet Goat"....no little donkeys involved.
4 - Dave Nalle
9/11 pretty much proves that we weren't safe before that date, we just didn't know it.
Which is better to be unsafe and live in blissful ignorance, or to be unsafe and aware of it?
That said, before and after 9/11 the domestic population of the United States has NOT been in grave danger from terrorism. While we might be subjected to an attack at any time, our population is too large, too populous and too spread out and the logistics of an attack are too challenging for any attack to be carried out which would impose widespread death and destruction.
Even an attack on the scale of 9/11 which took more than 5 years of planning and preparation is statistically relatively insignificant. If you compare the death figures for 2000, 2001 and 2002 you won't see a big blip in the death count for the US because of 9/11. The statistical change in your chance of dying was not mathematically significant despite the largest terrorist attack in history.
The truth is that as individuals we are NEVER completely safe and never have been. There are all sorts of things which could kill us which we routinely don't worry about. Realistically terrorism should also fall into that category unless we're planning on vacationing in Beirut.
Dave
5 - Peter J
That's a good point Dave, we were never safe and to be personally fearful of another such attack is ludicrous. We all would have a million to one better chance of being in a serious car wreck than dying in a terror attack.
That being said, why do we put up with Bush and his ridiculous rantings about those bad 'folks' out there and all of his pompous crap. If this matter wasn't so serious we could do a nightly comedy hour on these freeks that could last indefinitely.
The point is though, whether it was terrorist "folks" or the government there was criminal negligence and at the very least, as this bumbling idiot himself stated,"the buck stops here"! So let the friggin buck stop and at the very least, impeach the asshole and throw his entire posse of thieves, liars and fools out of office.
Christ almighty, they impeached Nixon for a deed on the fuckup scale of 1-10 of 2, Bush's 10 should get him executed.
6 - Peter J
#3 Bob,
Man, I don't know about you but I'd have been a lot more unsettled had all of the planes hit D.C.
That could be a pre-emptive to a lot more attacks on military bases, destroying much of what we have left of a military here. With our nation's capitol burning it could be a great opportunity for actual terrorists already within to strike targets across the country. Could you imagine that scenario?
I can and I gotta tell you, that makes me sweat.