That'd totally slipped my mind until I saw this. Truly a powerful image of the (usually destructive) power of belief.

Now brace for the hordes of theists saying religion is dangerous, but they have a personal relationship with god.

In the days after I ran into two women. One had fled New York, and was close enough to see people jump. Days later I was walking through a parking lot and ran into a Muslim woman. The look of fear on both their faces was intense and unforgetable and something I hope never to see again in my lifetime. It shook me so bad, and I wasn't even there. I cant even emagine what the people in New York or Washington Or PA went through, much less the poor victims on the planes.

Religion does need to die, but when we say it like that we must preface it with the meaning that "die" through the use of logic and reason, much like we outgrow the idea of Santa and Thor.

The Dark Ages, the Holocaust, and 9/11 were products of people who thought their deity gave them permission to harm others in order to gain a fictional utopia.

There were more than Christians in those towers and on those planes, yet if you were an alien visiting from another planet, you might falsely assume that 9/11 was a Christian holy day the way the media portrays it and the cross at ground zero.

This poor me mentality caused the attackers to do what they did and caused America to play victim when the reality is all those poor victims of that day are a result of the ongoing historical tribalism between both.

If humans seek to end these types of horrible events, you cant just point at the people who do it, you need to study history and ALL religions in social global dynamics.

All Americans and all people of all labels suffered that day. Humanity suffered that day. If we are to learn any lesson from 9/11, it is not closing up society and giving up our freedom, it should be that we skip the labels of politics and religion and realize that a human is a human.

As long as labels take priority over empathy humans will continue to do horrible things to each other.

Wow, 7 years.

There isn't a day that goes by where I hear the word "terror" in the news...it makes this event seem so much closer then 7 years ago. The kids, wives, brother, sisters left behind are now 7 years older, crazy to think that babies that were born by the wives/girlfriends of victims are now in elementary school.

In New York City on September the 11th, 2001, there were 37 Port Authority Police Officers, 23 New York Police Officers and 341 New York City Firefighters who gave their lives that day.

Bin Laden....you motherfuc*er. Wherever you're hiding,

like the chicken shit coward that you are, this one's for you

Huge difference in me since that day... and I was not directly effected. I lost no one.

The way that I used to be:

Proud American Republican, Pro Bush, easter and christmas Church-goer(not a believer. did it for my spouse. still an online atheist), had never read the Q'uran, but tried to find good things in the bible for christians to latch onto, had considered joining the John Birch Society, worked 70+ hours per week (I mean WORKED like sweating gallons), anti-drinking(at that time for 5 years), anti-drug(still am. oops.)

I wanted the US to turn the middle east into a gigantic display of beaded glass with irradiated raghead remains then set it up as our own crystal palace of oil.

When they said Iraq had WMD's and Al-Qaida ties, I wanted every last person between the Mediterranean and the South Pacific dragged behind the proverbial chariot of American world supremacy.

About August 2003, I asked myself "Why?" and started researching the answer.

Not until August 2004 had my opinions changed so much that it set in how horribly wrong I was to have supported by words what Howard Zinn helped me understand was purely American Imperialism.

Shortly after reading him, I cried for the first time since my early teens over the wasted years I could have been spending on the ideals I espoused as a youth.

Where am I now?

World Socialist Party member, Anti-American (not afraid to admit it either), Outspoken in public atheist(not just online), I've only been to church once without 'War on Easter' literature and that was for my daughter to try baptism (her idea), I cut my hours to 50 per week at a new job, and I've been 'tipsy' twice with friends.

And... I reached the same logical viewpoint that theism is a mental disorder more responsible for global terrorism than I could imagine. (song reference intended).

However, this isn't an anniversary thought. This is every day thinking even when there are more pressing priorities.

My sympathies to those who suffered losses on that day. 

My heartfelt gartitude to all who have ever served in the field of public safety.  Y'all never have gotten enough credit for what you do.

In the weeks that followed 9/11, we were constantly told by the media that "Things will never be the same.  The world has changed forever."  The irony is that the media was right, but they were so very, very wrong.  The rest of the world has marched merrily on its way.  The only place that will never be the same is America.  We've collectively shit our pants in fear of terrorists, and now we are half way to becoming a terrorist state ourselves.  Our citizens live in fear of government wire taps, screw ups at airport security checks, and nail clippers on planes.  We have to take our shoes off before being allowed onto a plane, for crying out loud.

Yes.  The world has changed, but only for us.  We lost the war on terror the moment that we let terrorists scare us into giving up freedom.

To be brutally honest... I dont give a shit about 9/11... i havent since 9/18/01 -_-

To be asked to reflect, or hold a memorial, remember, 9/11 is to me... the equivalent of paying a hobo to fuck me in the ass to commemorate the first time Bubba raped me in prison  (solely an example, didnt actually happen... that way >.>  ). Some people seriously need to learn how to cope with reality a little better...

I swear Americans have a sick fetish with loss... is not healthy

I reflect often.

I am concern about the possibility of another conspiracy being in the works. Clearly people like those who planned 9-11 have no scruples to acheive their ends.

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/09/ffrf-imagine-world-without-religion.html

Yeah radio friendly Hamby .... hint hint ...   

The way we reacted to that rich "Bin", anti-American radical Saudia, with nothing more than a small fan club of zealots is what freaks me the most. Mass delusion fueled by our idiotic media cashing in on fear and airing TV war games, while the elite rich said yippy, what a gift, now we can profit from war and go steal that Iraq oil we've been wanting. Oh, and the politicians gleefully lined up to shout, you need me people, to protect you .... and the Generals smiled.

The thing religion has to do with it is the dumbing down of ALL people. Islamic repressed countries of no church and state separation are an in our face example of our very own resent past. 

I don't consider Bin to be so much religiously motivated, no more than Bush and Cheney and their zealots.  Psycho Bin, and his zealots, hatred of America seems first most fueled by American pushy imperialism. This is the part of the 911 story mostly hidden from the public. How many have read the unaltered (?)  many words of angry lunitic murderer rich sicko vicious Bin spouting his reasons ???

Yeah No more Religion, and NO more stinking rich Imperialism ..... and hey, WHY Afganistan instead of Africa?  ... and why do atheist Bill Gates and Warren Buffet stay politically tame ????  Just a thought .....

ASSASSINATION ?  .....   Umm and who are the mega super rich mostly silent ???

At this risk of seeming insensitive, I agree. 

And worst of all, in 2004, hundreds of thousands of people died in the third world due to a tsunami that the first world could have helped mitigate and prevent....if it weren't so concerned for a bunch of assholes sitting on oil deposits. When was the last time you saw a memorial for the hundreds of thousands of victims? 225,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2,900. By focusing on this event so significantly, the Americans are giving their power away to the terrorists who were stupid enough to pull it off in the first place.

The amount of money spent on any memorial to the dead could be better spent on the living.

As far as the first world 'preventing' the tsunami, you're gonna have to explain that some time.

If the first world had ever made a sincere effort at uplifting the third world, prevention of at least some deaths and damage is inevitable through technology and understanding of global activity.

Has it not already? The 'sincere efforts' of the past started out as humanitarian endeavors. However,  most of them turned into enterprises of exploitation.

If I were in a third world country in need of aid, I would be hesitant to accept 'aid' as well.

So far, the middle east countries are the only ones that figured out how to get the better of us and our 'first world' mentality.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/06/world/main4326313.shtml

Now, if our government is charged with protecting us against terrorism from these third world countries and their governments are charged with protecting their people from us... is there anyone left to protect the people from mother nature other than themselves?

I have yet to see a truly sincere effort at rising the quality of living of any third world country by any first world country. Small groups and organizations have made some efforts, but they are drops in an ocean compared to what governments can do. And often have caused more harm than good.

And by the way, dropping bombs on civillians in an illegal war doesn't count as making an effort.

You mean the first world could have prevented suffering after the tsunami?  I'm baffled as to how we could have prevented the tsunami.

Nevertheless, I agree with your sentiment.  Regardless of whether any first world country has a moral obligation to send its own resources to other countries instead of building monuments to itself, we can say that focusing so much of our attention on an attack that killed less people than a good flu epidemic is somewhat misplaced.  I mentioned earlier that the U.S. is the only country place in the world where "everything has changed forever."

I have to ask, though.   Do you think the terrorists were stupid to pull of 9/11?  Consider the following:

1) They acheived 2/3 of their goals.

2) They lost only a couple dozen fighters.

3) Their kill to loss ratio was therefore around 100:1

4) America has changed its government as a direct result of the attack (Department of Homeland Security)

5) America attacked a country that didn't commit the attack.

6) America has spent trillions of dollars on this attack, hasn't caught the mastermind of 9/11, and is in deep recession.

Who was stupid, and who was smart?  I'm not sure I'm so willing to say the terrorists were stupid.

To be honest, I get really pissed off when I fly and some young Muslim security woman with her head wrapped in a sheet tells me, an atheist, that I can't take a water bottle on the plane.

Well guess what darling, you've got your damned co-religionists to thank for THAT one, please don't blame ME for the fact that YOUR people happen to take ancient desert fairytales a little too seriously. Of course if I ever really DID say that to a Muslim airport employee i suspect I'd get pulled aside into some interrigation room and be subjected to endless questioning if not a penalty for "racial abuse". Such is the world today.

I agree, attacking Saudi Arabia would have been A LOT MORE FUN. 

I agree with everything you state Hamby. I think that the ratio for 3) is higher when the missing and presumed dead are added it's about 150:1

Plus, if one thinks that for every hijacker who sacrificed himself, three more eventually 'pop up in his place' (and I do), then al-Qaeda not only succeeded but is actually flourishing, even with those members we've been able to find, hunt down or stumble upon and exterminate with extreme prejudice.

I'll never say the terrorist hijackers were stupid. And you won't hear me claim, as GeorGIE Bush stated, that the hijackers were  cowardly. Far from it. They didn't bail out in order to save themselves weeks beforehand or even at the last moment. They had an evil plan, they practiced, they studied, they waited and they carried it out with precision. The results were better than they could have dreamed or expected.

I think there are cowards within al-Qaeda though. One of them is still hiding today, unwilling to sacrifice himself in the fashion he has convinced so many others. Namely, bin Laden. He may be intelligent and he may demand his own protection in order to continue his teachings and the cause, as leaders often do, but he leads no specific country and yet somehow manages concealment. Yet there comes a time when leading by example becomes a necessity. I wonder if he'll ever muster up the guts to blow himself up somewhere. Somehow, I doubt it.

Whoa nelly!  Before this spirals out of control, let me reiterate my point.  Religious terrorism happened, was filmed, was documented in our day.  I started this blog as a way to remind everyone (and to suggest to the unbeknownst) that religion is such a delusion that it blinds people from their actions; e.i. murder.  I am not trying to take a death toll count and compare September 11th to other attrocities and try to get all sappy and say we should honor our fallen among all others.  To be honest, Christian-lead cavalry generals during the 18th-19th centuries probably killed more indians in genocidal "revisionism" than the muslim extremists did on Septembler 11.  I am surprised that we are diverging from this point.  As Darh Josh so wittingly pointed out - if a God exists, none of this would have happened.  That was the implicit intent behind this blog.  Please do not sully it by turning it into a thread about catastrophes being worse here or there, about conspiracy theories, about whether or not you care (it's pretty cold hearted and ignorant to say you don't give a shit, even if its the honest truth). 

I still worry that once religion is gone from Earth we'll still have another ideology to defeat... patriotism.

This is precisely what I'm trying to say.

Rook, I think we're on exactly the same page, and I want to make sure to make that clear.  I'm against any irrational concept that leads large groups of people to do stupid things, and blind patriotism has turned America into a paranoid shithole since 9/11.  Calling the terrorists stupid, mourning the dead as if attacking America is the worst thing anybody's ever done, building multimillion dollar monuments, and spending hundreds of millions to keep water bottles and nail clippers off of planes... these are all examples of dogmatic irrational beliefs gone haywire.

America poked a bear.  The bear bit back.  While we may have strong opinions about which side is right and which is wrong, we need to remember that everyone on both sides is a human.  Reducing 9/11 to platitudes devalues it and the people involved -- on both sides.  I'm certainly not on the terrorists' side.  I think what they do is abhorrent, but they do it for the same reasons that we in America do abhorrent things -- because of dogmatic irrational beliefs, including but not limited to religion and blind patriotism.

I think it's overly optimistic for Atheists, or for that matter Atheism in general, to assume fervent deity faith will fade away before any brand of national patriotism dies its slow death.

No argument here.

Yeah .... I am a "world citizen" first. Nationalism, patriotism, are most often an enemy to humanity and peace, as is religion. 

Yeah. I throw that optimistic delusion around a lot. lol. Realistically, I don't think getting rid of one would make the other easier to conquer either.

It's relatively simple, but it would have required an actual effort to be started decades ago. There's nothing the first world could do that it didn't do with the time and notice it had, lets get that settled now. But if the first world had truly committed to raising the quality of living in the third world throughout the 20th century, or even half of it, the damage and death that resulted in 2004 would have been mitigated significantly. Similar to how New Orleans would have been fine if any attention had been paid to the levies over the last few years.

In a site populated with Libertarians, I know this will likely get a lot of criticism for economic and political reasons, but please try to keep in mind that I am not a Libertarian, and do not think like one. Therefore a Libertarians politics will not necessarily be applicable to the scenario. 

Yes.

1: For clarity, can you specify their goals and which ones they achieved? So you know in advance, I very well may not disagree with this point.

2: Their goals were brainless and short sighted. I can tell you quite firmly that if I were the one who was running Al Qaeda, the World Trade Centre would have been the least of what happened that day. Which is not to say that I'm upset that they were stupid, I'm not. I'm quite happy that they were stupid. It means they'll lose and be unable to shove a gun into my face forcing me to take up arms myself.

Granted, but this isn't the numbers game that western civilization is used to.

Very good kill ratio. But I seem to remember a city named Hiroshima, where the ratio was 100,000+:0. 50 years previously. In that light, the attack was a dismal failure. I also look to the kill ratio that has resulted from the wars that sprung up directly because of September 11. I don't feel like looking up exact numbers, but I'm fairly confident in an estimate of 300,000:5000 in favour of the west.

I'm really not sure how that helps anyone except those in power at the American government. It allows for easier and more effecient destruction of terrorists and their goals(not to mention normal police actions), and it allows the feds to become one step closer to monarchy. It doesn't help the terrorists at all.

True. But did America attack Iraq because of 9/11, or was 9/11 simply the popular excuse to mobilize the American populace to favour such an attack? I personally do not know, and suspect it was simply a convenient excuse. If it was an excuse, than it is certainly believable that they would have come up with an alternative.

That's been America's goal since WWII. Laden just made himself a target, instead of the administration choosing one.

I'm not sure anyone was smart. But I quite firmly believe that the terrorists screwed themselves hugely. They could have acheived their goals and brought America to its knees. Instead they went for flash instead of substance. It was cheaper, it was easier, it cost less resources and had less chance of being discovered, but it was largely ineffective from the terrorist standpoint. Sure, they made 400 million people panic to varying degrees, but they caused almost no damage. Seriously, what is a few sky scrapers when looking at the United States? There are hundreds of cities with buildings that contain more people than died that day, in the air and on the ground combined. Less than half a percentage of the population was injured, let alone killed.

I often compare the events of September 11, 2001 with the act of swatting a killer bee nest. You'd better burn the whole thing in a heartbeat, or you're fucked.

I'll leave this as read.  Not worth going into.

I meant specific targets for destruction.  They got both towers, but were clearly not interested in destroying an open field with the third plane.  The fourth didn't get the Pentagon.  I guess maybe my memory is fuzzy.  Were they after a fourth target as well, or were two planes pointed at the Pentagon?  Maybe I should have said half their targets?  In any case, my point stands.  It was pretty successful, particularly when you consider that this is the first ever attack on American soil of this magnitude or material success.

Seems like they have been successful, from where I sit.  You haven't really argued anything here, just stated a general opinion.  I'll read on to see if you offer more.

And?

Yeah, but IIRC, the 300,000 don't happen to be of particular interest to the terrorists, none of whom were Iraqis.  Seems successful to me:

1) Carry out attack

2) Destroy target

3) Sit back recruiting more members while attacked country blasts away at a country you weren't in to begin with.

Are you familiar with the goals of Al Qaeda?  We are the devil.  We are the evil empire.  They want our empire destroyed.  The simplest way to destroy an empire is to induce it to destroy itself.  I'd say we're well on our way to being of minor significance in the world compared to emerging powers like China, India, and the European Union.   Spending trillions of dollars on a war to kill the terrorists' competition -- beneficial to the terrorists in two ways.  One, it's weakened our economy.  Two, there are a lot of dead people in Iraq, and Hussein (not a friend of Al Qaeda) is out of power.  Political instability in a non-al Qaeda country, if anything, will create more recruits.  Imagine the recruiting speech:  "Hey, guy... listen, we attacked America because we knew how evil they were.  It was Bush who had a grudge against you.  It wasn't our fault!  We were trying to expose them for what they are!  Now that you see how evil America is, why don't you join us?"

I don't think you're trying to think like a terrorist.  The goal isn't destroying as many targets as possible.  It's destroying the enemy in any way possible.  America is a shitty place compared to before the attacks.  We're hated by almost everybody in the world.  If the terrorists knew that Bush had an agenda against Hussein, and guessed that he would target Iraq after the attacks, I'd say they were very, very smart.

Again, why would we suppose that Bin Laden didn't know of Bush's agenda against Iraq?  Why wouldn't we suppose that he knew America couldn't wage any kind of real military offensive against al Qaeda, and would instead choose to further its own political agenda?  I mean, hell... armchair politicians all over the world expected it.

So what?  Why would you imply that because Bin Laden is a target for the US, the attack shouldn't have taken place, or should have been done differently?  I think maybe you're thinking like a westerner instead of a terrorist.  Good extremist muslims are taught that their life gains meaning when they are hunted by the infidels.

How, specifically?

You're missing my point completely.  For relatively little money, very few resources, and only a few lives, Al Qaeda managed to impose their own will upon an entire nation, and seven years later, we're still shitting our own breaches in fear of terrorism.  Terror = fear.  Americans are afraid of terrorists.  We live in fear.  Mission accomplished.

Who's fucked?  We've done almost nothing to Al Qaeda.  We captured a few handfuls of leaders.  So what?  Enrollment's up, from what I hear.

I agree to a certain extent. But we cant ignore the social nature of human beings either. South Park, pointed out correctly that even if the world were to give up religion, atheists, not by vertue of being atheists, but by virtue of being human would still collect in various groups and that just like humans in the past and present, would still have disagreements.

So while it is important in recognizing others as being human, just as important is to also recoginze that we don't always socialize with the same people and it is also impossible for all 6 billion people to agree on all issues 100% of the time.

I too am a citizen of the world. But I am also a Redskin fan who is fond of the ideas put forth by Thomas Jefferson regarding the Constitution and his views on religion. I am a fan of Metallica and Harry Conic Jr. I hate pro wrestling. Other people have other interests.

If we seek to avoid the same thing we accuse superstitious people of, including the absurd belief that the state should be worshiped like a god, then we must in our efforts of exposing others to reason, we must realize like any theist, that utopias dont exist.

So to expect clubs and borders and governments to vaporize is to ignore the inherant social evolution of the species. I certainly think we can improve as a species in putting common priorities at the top burner, but to expect a utopia is just as absurd for the atheist as we say it is for the theist.

I am probably the most blasphemous crass atheist on this site, but I hold no illusions that while others are bound by nature to piss and shit, that somehow I don't.

Glad you don't feel like bringing up a political and economic debate in the midst of this.

Canada did more damage with British forces and local militia directly to the US in 1812 than Al Qaeda has ever done(allowing for inflation makes it much worse). Canada won so handidly that the US promised to stop invading us. No other group, colony, or nation in the world has blasted the US as effectively. Your assertion that Laden had the most successful attack on US soil is incorrect.

As far as your targets go, I'll give it to you. I seem to recall a possibility that both the Penn and the Pent planes were intended for the White House, but I don't remember for sure. Doesn't really matter, the successfullness of the actual plane hijacking was extraordinary.

You have offered less than I, so there is nothing to respond to here.

And what? I stated a fact quite simply. Argue it or ignore it, your choice.

How exactly do you figure that the terrorists are not interested in how the wars' are going?

Afghanistan was the first target, and that's exactly where Bin Laden was. Your comment ignores the history and facts. And what exactly is successful about an attack when the response severely limits recruition, training, and communication within your own organisation?

Has nothing to do with terrorism. Those nations were destined to supercede the US years before Sept 11. Decades, even. It is inevitable.  As for inducing the US to destroy itself, the opposite was accomplished. The US was pulled together like never before. Dissenting opinions were made by traitors. Therefore, the attack = complete failure.

If spending more money than a government has was all it took to bring one down, there would be no governments today. And the weakened economy is almost exclusively bad management of the war, as opposed to the war itself. It wasn't Al Qaeda who weakened the US, it was George Bush and the American populace.

Which merely goes to show how little Americans know of the world. You think the US was loved before 9/11? Think again. You were hated with a passion. Clinton was the first president in decades that wasn't hated on sight by the majority of the world. 9/11 actually started to turn that around, until Bush made it clear that you were either with him or against him, and the tide turned again. Once more, it was the US that weakened the US. Not the terrorists.

Maybe he did. However, the only thing Laden achieved was making the US rush. It was going to go in anyway, with or without international support. A delay might have gained them more support, but it's highly unlikely.

I'm thinking like both. And not all terrorists are extremist moslems. Many of them are simply people who watched a family member blown apart, or had a friend die when a bomb dropped. They are PEOPLE who are fighting back against a nation committing an illegal war. You are the one who is making an error in assuming all terrorists follow the mould that Bush laid out. A mould that is as fictional as the reasons to attack Iraq in the first place.

Oh the sheer number of ways that could have increased the attacks effectiveness is mind boggling. I'll drop a few examples, but I'm not going to sit here and write a book on how to commit a terrorist attack effectively.

Multiple computer virus assault timed for just before or just after the first plane strike.

Rising up of small groups within the nation to attack targets of convenience and effect. Especially in New York City.

A few car bombs, or other mass effect weapons.

As you are missing mine.

Because You let it happen. It wouldn't have worked on Israel.

 They've done absolutely nothing to you beyond dropping a couple buildings and killing an insignificant number of people. Everything that happened to you was done by you. You've crippled them. You've isolated and exiled their leader. You've almost completely eliminated their established communications. And you might want to take a look at US army recruitment. That's up too, from what I hear.

Hmmm... I think we're just talking past each other.  I suspect we're both blindfolded, and you've got the elephant's trunk, and I've got it's tail.  We're talking about the same things from very different perspectives.

One thing I'm going to correct you on because it's right above the text window... U.S. military enrollment has been at all time lows since a year or so after the Iraq invasion started.  They're having to lower their standards to keep enrollment from going through the floor.  That is, unless I've been sorely misinformed.  This isn't really front and center in my day to day radar, so maybe I missed a memo somewhere, but I know things were very bad a couple of years ago for recruiters.

Anyway, I'm going to let this drop because I think we're probably on essentially the same team, and are disagreeing about interpretations, not actual events.  Not worth having a fight over, and I don't really think we disagree on much.  I'm fully aware -- painfully aware -- of how bad our public image has been, but I'm also aware that it found a way to get even worse after the invasion.

Finally, you're talking to someone who's probably going to expatriate before he dies, so don't get the impression that I'm trying to make the U.S. look better or more significant than it is because of some kind of misplaced patriotism.  I think the U.S. had a chance to be a really awesome nation, but it blew that chance over a century ago.

I accept your correction. It may very well be that I was recalling Canadian recruitment being up recently, or another nation entirely. I've just been reading about a bunch of American soldiers who fled to Canada and are likely going to be sent home. It's possible that will change, but if soldiers are fleeing the military to a foreign nation, I doubt recruitment can be very good. And you make some very good points. It's probably best to leave it here.

... "(theism in general)"

Are you kidding me? You cannot say that the distinct beliefs of one religion characterizes all religions and still claim to be rational. That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. The Christian scriptures teach that we are to: "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "if at all possible live with all men peaceably". If you honestly think that you can lump all religions together simply because you are commited to atheism you have every reason to think that your brain is malfunctioning.

If you think there wasn't a religious component involving christians and jews then you have a lot to learn. Might want to take a stab at explaining all the christian terrorists in the middle east and the US while you're at it (don't bother if you're just going to use the "no-true-scotsman fallacy" ) . It's your war. We're stuck in the middle. Or the outside. However you look at it.