My original comments on 9/11 as it happened

When the attacks first happened in 2001, I was keeping a personal journal at livejournal. Below are the posts I made that day watching the events unfold. There's a reference in there to a game called "Majestic" - it was a virtual online game that played out in "real time" - with you getting messages and faxes and such from the game with clues as you unraveled a fictitious government conspiracy. After 9/11, I couldn't play the game anymore at all, but it had some interesting effects on my initial thoughts about the events.

12:16p - Today I've only been awake about an hour now... Matt (knowing me to be a news junkie, and given the enormity of todays news) woke me up to tell me what was going on.. I knew he'd never joke about something this big, yet somehow I expected to turn on the TV and find out that it was something other than what he had said.

All I can do at this point it do whatever I can to keep my mind focused - part of me wants to fall apart in hysterical tears and fear, part of me wants to exact revenge. The best I can do, though, is call upon Thor, Tyr and Odin to help us to find the nithings who did this and to subject them to the full measure of Justice (with a big J) that they deserve.

At the same time, I can tell that Majestic has been getting to me - I know that Bush has been wanting to spend more on defense and I can't help but wonder (thought not actually think that it is at all possible) if some of this was "allowed" to happen as a justification for greater defense spending. No, I do not actually think he or any other American politician would be that callous, but for some reason, the question is still there.

My Hammer is close at hand, and I am finding some measure of comfort from the energies it contains. Knowing that we, the ordinary people of the world, have a defender in Thor is also comforting... sometimes horrors must happen, and I can't pretend to understand, or even have an inkling of comprehension, of why, but I have faith in our Defender, and it is in that from which I am finding the most comfort right now.

current mood: scared, shocked, numb
current music: MSNBC - and appreciating Brian Williams a great deal...

6:11p - More thoughts as the day goes on
These are some messages I posted in reply to comments on my mailing lists. I want to keep them to remember them again later.

I keep hearing the speculation that what has happened was due to Osama Bin Laden - which is admittedly quite likely - but I also remember all of the assumptions right after OKC that it was an Arab terrorist plot, and we know how that turned out. I honestly don't know what I think would be worse - a foreign attack or domestic. The enormity is just too much to grasp right now.

I'm glad that the networks are sharing/pooling resources rather than trying to make this a competitive event - its a small thing, but reassuring in a way. I know we'll be hearing many stories of tragedy and heroism - they were just commenting that there is speculation that the plane that crashed in PA may have been on its way to DC and the Capitol building or White House, and that the pilot may have downed it deliberately to prevent that. Given what else has happened, especially the Pentagon building, I wouldn't be surprised. If that is the case, that pilot may be one of the greatest heroes we've had
in this country - being able to keep enough control to down the plane like that rather than let the presumptive terrorists take it where they wanted may have saved a lot more than just the lives of the people in the eventual target - had it been going to the Capitol building, the impact would be almost incalculable, just because of the toll on our current House and Senate memberships.

Kriselda

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

===== QUOTE =====
> Hoping everyone out there is okay too. I didn't vote for Bush and was
> pissed when he won, but I'll tel you I'm glad it's him dealing with this
> and not Gore. There's a reason for the saying: "Don't mess with Texas."
===== QUOTE =====

I have to admit I'm torn on that point... while you're right about the "don't mess with Texas" attitude (which could be very helpful), I'm also a
bit worried that the way Bush reacts to this could make things worse - especially given how many countries he's been pissing off with his military/defense proposals and plans thus far... as much as we need to be tough right now, part of me wishes we had someone with a bit more
sensitivity in office right now. But at the same time, Bush hasn't shown us how he's going to handle this yet - he hasn't had time to - and I'm not going to pass judgment until there's a lot more info in. I will ask Thor, Odin & Tyr to guide him and give him their blessings, that he may lead us and serve the interest of Justice, Courage, and Honour.

Kriselda

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

===== QUOTE =====
> I've just been thinking about this and whoever is responsible has just
> crippled the defence offices and the financial district.. Is anyone else
> reading too much into this, or is it just my overactive imagination?
===== QUOTE =====

Keep in mind that for the last several weeks I've been playing a paranoid-conspiracy game that is handled in "real-time" and is exceptionally interactive (I get phone calls, faxes and IM's from the game, and it's designed to play out like a virtual reality), so my mind is sort of working
along those tracks, but no, I don't really think you're reading too much into it. I also have a feeling that there may well be something to the
speculation that the 4th plane - the one that went down in PA - may have actually been en route to Washington DC to target something like the Capitol or White House (part of the speculation is based on the fact that it was the largest of the 4 hijacked aircraft and therefore they think it may have been headed for a very large target), but that the pilot was able to retain enough control to ditch the plane before the terrorists could take over. *IF* that is the case (and, admittedly, it is *pure* speculation at this point), they could also have taken out the heart of the government - especially if they were targeting the Capitol. This was very much a strike intended to cripple a great deal of our domestic infrastructure -
financially and politically.

Kriselda

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

===== QUOTE =====
> They say it was Palestinians and that there are parties in the streets in
> Palestinian areas - is this true?
===== QUOTE =====

We have no evidence at this point as to who may be behind this. The primary assumption is that it is Osama bin Lauden, but we should keep in mind that after the Oklahoma City, we made the assumption that it was Arab terrorists initially, and then learned it was actually one of our own. In Palestinian areas, however, apparently, the citizens are assuming that it was an Arab terrorist, and, yes, they are celebrating. Bin Lauden had made threats in recent weeks that he was planning something very big, in retaliation for our support of Israel. Officially, however, Yassir Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, has denounced the attacks. So, the
Palestinian response is split between the leadership and the civilians.

Kriselda

This was one of the more interesting comments I posted, though, just 2 days after the event. I had commented in a post about Bob Barr trying to get the ban on state-sponsored assassination repealed, and one of my visitors was question what I wanted us to do if I didn't think we should go to war and opposed state-sponsored assassinations. This was my response:

If we can put together credible, hard evidence that bin Laden is behind this (and I believe we're close to doing that already), and given that we know the Taliban has been sheltering him (which in my mind is no different than saying they approve of what he does), then I have NO problem with our going to war. I view war as a very different thing than an assassination. If, during the course of the war, bin Laden is killed, then that's what happens. What I don't want to see happen is for us, on shaky or insufficient evidence, make a decision that we are going to kill bin Laden and then send in an assassin to "take him out" - such as what the CIA tried with Castro in the 60's.

My preference would be to see bin Laden captured, brought to trial and sentenced as the jury deems appropriate (and that it would be a death sentence, I have little doubt). I will support a war effort if we have the kind of evidence necessary to justify such an action (and I will accept the judgement of the international community in that - if NATO supports a war effort based on what evidence we have, then I consider that sufficient). I just don't want us to go skulking around in the dark, sneaking up on him and trying to kill him in secret.

At the time, I was more concerned about us using shaky evidence in going after bin Laden, but it was a bit surprising that even back then I was worried about us acting without solid evidence or the backing of the international community.

Something else I was realizing today. How often do we hear people accusing those of us who oppose the war in Iraq of supporting terrorism or hating the US? Yet I don't recall there being much of an outcry against the Afghani war - and I know that I, for one, was ok with what we did when we went in (though I am decidedly NOT ok with how we've handled things since the Taliban fell). The difference, of course, is that there was evidence of the Taliban supporting al Qaeda and helping hide Osama bin Laden, and taking the Taliban out made reasonable sense as part of an effort to weaken al Qaeda and bringing bin Laden to justice - though we've blown the opportunities we did have in the immediate aftermath of the war.

See, it's not just the concept of a war that so many are opposed to - or that we think we shouldn't go after anyone because we somehow think the US deserved this. Its the fact that the war in Iraq makes no sense in terms of reacting to 9/11 or in trying to deal with terrorism in general. As I said in 2001, I can support a war if there is sufficient evidence that we are going after someone who is a legitimate target in trying to bring those who attacked us to justice. But I won't support one where the evidence is weak or, worse, virtually non-existant, and which is neither just nor likely to do anything to contain the problem of terrorism in any real way.

Posted by thorswitch at September 12, 2003 02:47 AM | TrackBack