DON'T PANIC! This blog is authored by Seniors at Aragon High School, San Mateo, CA.
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
Analysis: George W. Bush, Among Others, Addresses September 11th attacks at Memorial
Last Saturday, Americans mourned the 20th anniversary of the September 11th attacks carried out by the terrorist group Al-Qaeda. To commemorate the heroic actions carried out by civilians on Flight 93 (one of the four hijacked plane flights), former president George W. Bush and current vice president Kamala Harris spoke at the Flight 93 Memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. In their speeches, they made sure to acknowledge the indisputable unity in America that followed the September 11th attacks. Kamala Harris noted that "on the days that followed September 11th, 2001, we were all reminded that unity is possible in America. We were reminded, too, that unity is imperative in America. It is essential to our shared prosperity, our national security, and to our standing in the world"(1). Bush also recognized the unity in America following the attacks and shared his pride in leading an "amazing, resilient, and united people"(1).
However, what received the most media attention was Bush's comparison of American extremist values with the values of foreign extremists. He famously mentioned that "there's little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit, and it is our continuing duty to confront them"(3). Many news outlets, including CNBC and CNN, considered Bush's comparison between domestic and foreign extremists a stark reference to the January 6th riots. Journalist Chris Cillizza even went so far as to call it a direct attack on former president Donald Trump and Trumpism. Many people, including junior senator Ted Cruz, would quibble with Cillizza's claims for an attack on the January 6th riots is not necessarily an attack on all Trump supporters. Many Trump supporters (or Trump supporters leading up to the conclusion of the 2020 presidential elections), denounced the January 6th riots, including Cruz, who referred to it as a "terrorist attack" and said that "everyone who attacked the Capitol should be fully prosecuted and they should spend a long, long time in jail"(6).
Former President George W Bush and former First Lady Laura
Bush attend the service commemorating those aboard Flight 93
Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
Although many people, including Donald Trump, criticized George W. Bush for his supposed comparison between Al-Qaeda terrorists and the January 6th rioters, Bush's statement seemed to be broader than focusing on just the attempted insurrection. Firstly, he used the umbrella term "violent extremists" to describe the domestic threat that supposedly remains in America... this could include The Proud Boys, the Ku Klux Klan, as well as a myriad of other groups. However, if Bush was trying to subtly denounce the riots of January 6, he did so by comparing a riot that led to one death to a terrorist group (Al Qaeda) that killed 2,996 people in the September 11th attacks alone. Of course, he carefully mentions a similarity in values, and not actions, by noting the extremist groups' "disdain for pluralism" and "disregard for human life." Any extremist group would certainly disdain pluralism as it is the ideology that the policymaking process should be open to everyone's input, regardless of varying beliefs and opinions. For reference, the United States is close to a pluralistic society (although not completely there), as it is a representative democracy that promotes the indirect or direct participation of all Americans in the policymaking process. Anyway, opponents of pluralism are not always elitist but are evidently against the participation of all citizens in policymaking. This would raise concerns with many Americans today, as America thrives on its diversity in values, opinions, and political stances. Moreover, Bush's assertion that domestic extremist groups do not regard human life as valuable may be true, but is not supported by much evidence if it is directed at the January 6th rioters. Again, one solitary person died as a result of the January 6th riots, and it happened to be one of the rioters who capitol police shot. Overall, Bush and Harris' statements at the Flight 93 Memorial site were full of inspiring, uniting, and uplifting moments, but Bush's comparison between active domestic extremist groups and Al-Qaeda is unsettling to say the least. There are some obvious similarities in values (a hatred for a core aspect of American democracy is one of them), but the mass death resulting from the September 11th attacks do speak for themselves. According to PolitiFact, there have been 62 attacks by far-right violent extremists since September 11th, so they are not uncommon, but the deaths are nowhere near deaths from 9/11 alone. Violent extremist attacks in the U.S. have resulted in 225 deaths since September 11th, 2001, and that includes both far-right violent extremists and radical Islamic violent extremists. However, the inflammatory responses on social media to such a subtle message in Bush's speech suggest that Americans are just as polarized as they were before and after the September 11th attacks - the unity during the September 11th attacks is thankfully a small indication that there is still an inseparable bond between many Americans.
^^this is probably way too much text for one paragraph
Former President George W Bush gives speech at Flight 93 Memorial site
1) Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism... but should terrorism carried out by domestic extremist groups be treated any differently than terrorism carried out by foreign extremist groups?
2) Aside from the tragedy of the event, will September 11th, 2001 continue be remembered as a day when Americans came together to unite against evil, or will it only be remembered as a temporary facade hiding the deep-seated moral division in the United States? Why?
3) Regardless of whether George W. Bush was trying to reference the January 6th capitol takeover in his speech, which is the more serious threat to the safety of Americans at the moment: foreign terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, or right-wing extremist groups in the U.S.? Why?
The comparison and relationship between domestic terrorism and foreign terrorism is extremely complex and comparing them is difficult. While foreign terrorism is an attack on both our nation's ideas and people, I believe it is less dangerous long-term than domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism actively undermines democracy and they also have the power to actively continue their attack on our nation's institutions. It symbolizes a divide in our nation that has the chance to destroy the idea of the American people as a united nation. We are certainly still in the early stages of this political polarization trend so it's still too early to determine whether or not 9/11 will be considered a rare uniting event. What will be important is to see if politicians will consistently promote the unity they speak so highly of every year on 9/11 and ensure that American unity is a norm and not a single annual event.
In the Federalist papers, specifically number 10, James Madison gave a warning about the possible "mischief" that factions could cause. Domestic terrorists may be seen as an extension of this creation of factions, save that they are unwilling to try and seize power through "political means" (a more subtle approach, at least) and instead use violence to try and assert their power. These groups are more dangerous than foreign terrorists as a whole; civil strife or even a civil war will severely weaken the stability of the U.S. (obviously) and it will take a lot more time for us to bound back than from a foreign terrorist attack, such as 9/11, which at least served to keep the people together. However, while 9/11 may have brought people together then, it has been driven into the ground by internet hyperpluralism and trolls, sparking more conflicts online (which inevitably leak out into the real world, and taint people's opinions of those that they were arguing with) than civil discussion or any sense of community.
I'm afraid that the "inseparable bond between Americans" brought about in memory of the September 11th Attacks fails in regard to the now many generations with no memory of the national crisis. Simply put, to younger generations during and after 9/11, the attacks might mean be labeled nothing more than recent history or as a "bad thing that happened". Having not lived through the tragedy themselves, it's impossible for them to understand the shock and horror of terrorism, the demand for retribution in the middle east, and the value of national security. With such a big disconnect, history may find itself repeating. The older generations learned their lesson through grief and tragedy, however the newer generation may not value the same thing. "9/11, never forget" vs. "9/11, never remembered".
Alex, you make some good points. The reality is that foreign terrorism tends to be given more attention simply because it is rarer than domestic terrorism, although that really means that domestic terrorism should be given more attention. Where's the evidence for that? The Politifact chart is somewhat revealing, and it ONLY talks about right wing terrorism- there is still domestic terrorism not associated with the alt-right. I mean, just check out this graphic from the Center for Strategic and International Studies https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/TNT_Military_Police_Rise_in_Terrorism_Figure%205_1.jpg?To9ORzaw3aUCI12XJmXVuV11iOx5.EEq Not only has the number of "violent far right" terrorist attacks increased rapidly since 2018, but also "violent far left" and "religious" groups. Of course this vague terminology is certainly concerning, but ultimately what matters is if there is any domestic terrorism AT ALL. And yes, if politicians stick to their promises - "there are no red states or blue states but the United States," then maybe polarization will decrease and that might affect terrorism rates.
Thanks Amogh for your reference to Federalist 10. Factions will always exist (because freedom of assembly/speech will always exist, Madison made his oxygen/fire analogy), but there is a growing culture that political systems are "rigged" and that the process is too slow. Violence, of course, is never the solution. And you're right, even though terrorist attacks are a giant issue of their own, there is a difference between all Americans uniting against a foreign terrorist group and Americans turning on their own neighbors. A civil war would not only severely weaken the stability of the U.S. but could destroy it. And yes, 9/11 is a terrible reminder that as a country we must prepare for unpredicted attacks... making a mockery of it is a frustrating byproduct of social media's dominance in our current culture.
Jonathan, thanks for sharing that our generation is somewhat ignorant on the subject of 9/11 (which isn't necessarily our faults). Throughout all of my education, I've learned bits and pieces of it but have never honed in on the actually event which changed our country forever. There was an initial reason that we went to war in the Middle East, and that was of course warranted (remember 2,996 Americans were killed). However, much time has passed, and now that the Biden administration withdrew troops from the Middle East, it will probably start to fade away from younger generations' minds. History repeating itself is exactly why we learn about history in school, no?
I feel like it is difficult for our generation to imagine the aftershock of 9/11 and the effect it had, and it is important to remember it and honor the people who died and the first responders.
However, I feel like the "inseparable bond between Americans" mentioned by Jonathan (and alluded to in other comments as well) is a slightly misguided interpretation of events, even if that may have been true for some people. The events of 9/11 caused a spike in anti-Muslim and anti-Sikh violence that cannot be ignored. According to the NPR article linked at the bottom of this post, "the FBI's number of reported hate crimes against Muslims spiked in 2001, growing by more than 1600% from 2000. For every year after, they have remained higher than the levels seen before 9/11." (NPR). Acknowledging the legacy of 9/11 should include this as well as acknowledging the tragedy of the 3000 lives lost. The sense of unity after 9/11 did not include all Americans, and I feel like this is often overlooked.
For instance, as Nicky said "here is a difference between all Americans uniting against a foreign terrorist group and Americans turning on their own neighbors," but Americans were turning against their own Sikh and Muslim neighbors at the same time as they were united against a foreign terrorist group. It is incredibly important to remember 9/11 as a moment that our nation was attacked, but "never forgetting" should also allow for us to understand the dangers of blind hatred that emerged towards groups who were not responsible. For the Muslim Americans in our country who were targeted after 9/11, hate crimes have remained higher ever since, so the effects of the event are not necessarily fading away from the younger generation's minds, or "never remembered."
I also want to make it clear that I am not at all trying to downplay the traumatic effects of 9/11 on all Americans and the tragedy of those who lost their lives, I just wanted to point out some of the effects that seemed to kind of be overlooked in the comments that I saw. I'm also not sure if I've seen anyone "making a mockery of 9/11," but that might just be the limitations of my own experience. I think while remembering not to repeat history, which a lot of people brought up, it's important to not repeat the history of violence towards minority groups being scapegoated in times of hardship for our country.
In addition to the legacy of islamophobia and anit-Muslim, anti-Sikh violence, there is also a history of torture associated with the aftermath of 9/11. The experiences of those detained for potential connections to 9/11 at Guantanamo Bay are portrayed in the film "The Mauritanian." I cannot totally speak to the legitimacy of the movie as I'm not a historian or anything, but the movie was really eye-opening for me and it moved me to research more about Guantanamo Bay. I really recommend watching the movie + looking into the history of torture post 9/11.
Writing a blog comment about this would be too long, but I'm going to try to give a brief summary here and just link some articles that are a good introduction. Guantanamo Bay, as described by the NYT article linked at the bottom, "held nearly 800 people, but now just 40 men are imprisoned there, and almost three-quarters of them have never been criminally charged. They're known as "forever prisoners" and they're being detained indefinitely. Some have been there for almost two decades" (New York Times). While there, the detainees were exposed to forms of torture that I will not describe but do not think could ever be justified. It was also an ineffective way of gaining information as the confessions were often illegitimate and brought on by cruel and unusual means.
Zara, in response to your first comment: I completely agree with your sentiment that Americans were turning against their own minority neighbors at the same time that everyone was uniting against a foreign terrorist group. The saddest part is that people were simply being racist, bigoted, and grouping any Muslim American in with the terrorists that committed the attacks. And you're not downplaying the effects of September 11th, because both things can be true at once: September 11th was a traumatizing and harrowing experience for all Americans, but it also triggered a growing animus for minority groups within the U.S. For some reason this Islamophobic culture in the U.S. seems to be enduring, so hopefully our education system works to teach kids to eliminate bias and to be accepting of everyone regardless of race or creed.
In response to your second comment: Thanks for sharing about Gauntanamo Bay. I really do not know much about the "forever prisoners" but I will make sure to read those articles and watch the movie and I'll let you know my thoughts afterwards.
I agree with Zara's interpretation of the ostensible "unity" that ensued after the terrorist attacks. It seems as though the US public is only able to unite against another group - it is more of a shared hatred that bonds them together instead of shared values. This is a dangerous game to play, because of mob mentality which, as everyone has said before me, directly corresponds to the January 6th failed coup. I think 9/11 was more of an earthquake that erupted because the smaller fractures and shakes were getting too small compared to the larger problem. The US' interference abroad was immense and real people were getting hurt - however, of course, nothing can justify 9/11 and the lives lost. The one-foot-in-one-foot-out strategy the US was persisting before the attacks was not sustainable, however, instead of withdrawing, the US went in harder which we're now paying the price of.
10 comments:
The comparison and relationship between domestic terrorism and foreign terrorism is extremely complex and comparing them is difficult. While foreign terrorism is an attack on both our nation's ideas and people, I believe it is less dangerous long-term than domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism actively undermines democracy and they also have the power to actively continue their attack on our nation's institutions. It symbolizes a divide in our nation that has the chance to destroy the idea of the American people as a united nation. We are certainly still in the early stages of this political polarization trend so it's still too early to determine whether or not 9/11 will be considered a rare uniting event. What will be important is to see if politicians will consistently promote the unity they speak so highly of every year on 9/11 and ensure that American unity is a norm and not a single annual event.
In the Federalist papers, specifically number 10, James Madison gave a warning about the possible "mischief" that factions could cause. Domestic terrorists may be seen as an extension of this creation of factions, save that they are unwilling to try and seize power through "political means" (a more subtle approach, at least) and instead use violence to try and assert their power. These groups are more dangerous than foreign terrorists as a whole; civil strife or even a civil war will severely weaken the stability of the U.S. (obviously) and it will take a lot more time for us to bound back than from a foreign terrorist attack, such as 9/11, which at least served to keep the people together. However, while 9/11 may have brought people together then, it has been driven into the ground by internet hyperpluralism and trolls, sparking more conflicts online (which inevitably leak out into the real world, and taint people's opinions of those that they were arguing with) than civil discussion or any sense of community.
I'm afraid that the "inseparable bond between Americans" brought about in memory of the September 11th Attacks fails in regard to the now many generations with no memory of the national crisis. Simply put, to younger generations during and after 9/11, the attacks might mean be labeled nothing more than recent history or as a "bad thing that happened". Having not lived through the tragedy themselves, it's impossible for them to understand the shock and horror of terrorism, the demand for retribution in the middle east, and the value of national security. With such a big disconnect, history may find itself repeating. The older generations learned their lesson through grief and tragedy, however the newer generation may not value the same thing. "9/11, never forget" vs. "9/11, never remembered".
Alex, you make some good points. The reality is that foreign terrorism tends to be given more attention simply because it is rarer than domestic terrorism, although that really means that domestic terrorism should be given more attention. Where's the evidence for that? The Politifact chart is somewhat revealing, and it ONLY talks about right wing terrorism- there is still domestic terrorism not associated with the alt-right. I mean, just check out this graphic from the Center for Strategic and International Studies https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/TNT_Military_Police_Rise_in_Terrorism_Figure%205_1.jpg?To9ORzaw3aUCI12XJmXVuV11iOx5.EEq
Not only has the number of "violent far right" terrorist attacks increased rapidly since 2018, but also "violent far left" and "religious" groups. Of course this vague terminology is certainly concerning, but ultimately what matters is if there is any domestic terrorism AT ALL. And yes, if politicians stick to their promises - "there are no red states or blue states but the United States," then maybe polarization will decrease and that might affect terrorism rates.
Thanks Amogh for your reference to Federalist 10. Factions will always exist (because freedom of assembly/speech will always exist, Madison made his oxygen/fire analogy), but there is a growing culture that political systems are "rigged" and that the process is too slow. Violence, of course, is never the solution. And you're right, even though terrorist attacks are a giant issue of their own, there is a difference between all Americans uniting against a foreign terrorist group and Americans turning on their own neighbors. A civil war would not only severely weaken the stability of the U.S. but could destroy it. And yes, 9/11 is a terrible reminder that as a country we must prepare for unpredicted attacks... making a mockery of it is a frustrating byproduct of social media's dominance in our current culture.
Jonathan, thanks for sharing that our generation is somewhat ignorant on the subject of 9/11 (which isn't necessarily our faults). Throughout all of my education, I've learned bits and pieces of it but have never honed in on the actually event which changed our country forever. There was an initial reason that we went to war in the Middle East, and that was of course warranted (remember 2,996 Americans were killed). However, much time has passed, and now that the Biden administration withdrew troops from the Middle East, it will probably start to fade away from younger generations' minds. History repeating itself is exactly why we learn about history in school, no?
I feel like it is difficult for our generation to imagine the aftershock of 9/11 and the effect it had, and it is important to remember it and honor the people who died and the first responders.
However, I feel like the "inseparable bond between Americans" mentioned by Jonathan (and alluded to in other comments as well) is a slightly misguided interpretation of events, even if that may have been true for some people. The events of 9/11 caused a spike in anti-Muslim and anti-Sikh violence that cannot be ignored. According to the NPR article linked at the bottom of this post, "the FBI's number of reported hate crimes against Muslims spiked in 2001, growing by more than 1600% from 2000. For every year after, they have remained higher than the levels seen before 9/11." (NPR). Acknowledging the legacy of 9/11 should include this as well as acknowledging the tragedy of the 3000 lives lost. The sense of unity after 9/11 did not include all Americans, and I feel like this is often overlooked.
For instance, as Nicky said "here is a difference between all Americans uniting against a foreign terrorist group and Americans turning on their own neighbors," but Americans were turning against their own Sikh and Muslim neighbors at the same time as they were united against a foreign terrorist group. It is incredibly important to remember 9/11 as a moment that our nation was attacked, but "never forgetting" should also allow for us to understand the dangers of blind hatred that emerged towards groups who were not responsible. For the Muslim Americans in our country who were targeted after 9/11, hate crimes have remained higher ever since, so the effects of the event are not necessarily fading away from the younger generation's minds, or "never remembered."
I also want to make it clear that I am not at all trying to downplay the traumatic effects of 9/11 on all Americans and the tragedy of those who lost their lives, I just wanted to point out some of the effects that seemed to kind of be overlooked in the comments that I saw. I'm also not sure if I've seen anyone "making a mockery of 9/11," but that might just be the limitations of my own experience. I think while remembering not to repeat history, which a lot of people brought up, it's important to not repeat the history of violence towards minority groups being scapegoated in times of hardship for our country.
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/14/647426417/people-saw-only-a-turban-and-a-beard-reflecting-on-a-post-sept-11-death
https://www.npr.org/local/305/2021/09/09/1035486312/how-life-changed-for-washington-muslims-and-sikhs-after-9-11-in-their-own-words
In addition to the legacy of islamophobia and anit-Muslim, anti-Sikh violence, there is also a history of torture associated with the aftermath of 9/11. The experiences of those detained for potential connections to 9/11 at Guantanamo Bay are portrayed in the film "The Mauritanian." I cannot totally speak to the legitimacy of the movie as I'm not a historian or anything, but the movie was really eye-opening for me and it moved me to research more about Guantanamo Bay. I really recommend watching the movie + looking into the history of torture post 9/11.
Writing a blog comment about this would be too long, but I'm going to try to give a brief summary here and just link some articles that are a good introduction. Guantanamo Bay, as described by the NYT article linked at the bottom, "held nearly 800 people, but now just 40 men are imprisoned there, and almost three-quarters of them have never been criminally charged. They're known as "forever prisoners" and they're being detained indefinitely. Some have been there for almost two decades" (New York Times). While there, the detainees were exposed to forms of torture that I will not describe but do not think could ever be justified. It was also an ineffective way of gaining information as the confessions were often illegitimate and brought on by cruel and unusual means.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/12/us/politics/torture-post-9-11.html
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/10/1014772283/what-happens-to-guantanamo-now-that-u-s-troops-are-leaving-afghanistan
* the movie (and articles to some extent) have really graphic portrayals of torture as a warning
Zara, in response to your first comment:
I completely agree with your sentiment that Americans were turning against their own minority neighbors at the same time that everyone was uniting against a foreign terrorist group. The saddest part is that people were simply being racist, bigoted, and grouping any Muslim American in with the terrorists that committed the attacks. And you're not downplaying the effects of September 11th, because both things can be true at once: September 11th was a traumatizing and harrowing experience for all Americans, but it also triggered a growing animus for minority groups within the U.S. For some reason this Islamophobic culture in the U.S. seems to be enduring, so hopefully our education system works to teach kids to eliminate bias and to be accepting of everyone regardless of race or creed.
In response to your second comment:
Thanks for sharing about Gauntanamo Bay. I really do not know much about the "forever prisoners" but I will make sure to read those articles and watch the movie and I'll let you know my thoughts afterwards.
I agree with Zara's interpretation of the ostensible "unity" that ensued after the terrorist attacks. It seems as though the US public is only able to unite against another group - it is more of a shared hatred that bonds them together instead of shared values. This is a dangerous game to play, because of mob mentality which, as everyone has said before me, directly corresponds to the January 6th failed coup. I think 9/11 was more of an earthquake that erupted because the smaller fractures and shakes were getting too small compared to the larger problem. The US' interference abroad was immense and real people were getting hurt - however, of course, nothing can justify 9/11 and the lives lost. The one-foot-in-one-foot-out strategy the US was persisting before the attacks was not sustainable, however, instead of withdrawing, the US went in harder which we're now paying the price of.
Post a Comment