On September 11, 2001, I was working in the USA with an H2B visa, in Sun Valley Resort in Idaho. I worked late shift in the hotel laundry, so I usually slept a bit late in the morning. I do not know the exact time when I walked into the communal area, still bleary-eyed and foggy-minded, and saw it suddenly packed with people glued to the TV set in the corner. I glanced at the TV, and I saw the smoke billowing from the WTC towers.
“What is that, some new American action flick?”
“No, the news, someone flew planes into the WTC,” was a reply that did not wake me up immediately. When it finally dawned on me what I just heard, I joined the group.
One of the things that I remember seeing that day (or shortly after) was an interview that was, AFAIK, aired only once. I never found any transcript, I do not remember who was interviewing whom or which channel aired it, and I was never able to find it on the internet either (YouTube did not exist back then). But I do remember that the interviewee said something along the lines, “This attack, whilst unconscionably horrible, is the direct result of America meddling into other people’s affairs. I mean, given how we behave in the Middle East and how we treat the people there, it is not entirely surprising that it happened. America is responsible for the political climate that leads many people around the globe to hate us.”
The self-proclaimed president of peace claims to have stopped 8 wars, while in reality, he bombed 7 countries in just his first year and keeps illegally killing civilians at sea. And whilst his latest warmongering escapade might not lead to an outright WW3 (although that is too close to being the real outcome than before), it has, in my opinion, greatly increased the possibility of another 9/11-like event happening in the foreseeable future. Maybe not directly on US soil, it might happen somewhere in Europe or the Middle East, but a lot of innocent people will die. Killing the spiritual leader of a religion of over 190 million people, a religion that has a notoriety for producing terrorists, will not lead to anything good.
I only hope that when that happens, people will not forget who is to blame for those deaths – the USA and their war-mongering, sociopathic, criminal (adjudicated rapist, convicted fraudster/scammer, 34 felonies under his belt), and frankly, downright evil president. His personal responsibility and blame in this are much clearer than the collective responsibility of the USA as a whole was before 9/11.
I have my own opinion about the 9/11 attacks (quelle surprise!), based on my time being exposed to minor intelligence work while stationed in Turkey with the USAF. I’ve explained my views a couple of times, but I’ll do it again because I think it is worth understanding. There were only two targets in the 9/11 attacks, the two symbols of US Imperialism common in the Middle East; the Pentagon represented military domination while the World Trade Center represented economic domination. These two targets had been the focus of decades of anti-US propaganda in the Middle East revolutionary media. Other possible targets which may have appeared obvious to US citizens were not focuses of the Middle East anti-US propaganda. While I’ve heard plenty of pundits claim that the plane which was downed by the passengers was headed for (pick one: The White House, Congress, Reagan International Airport, Norfolk Naval Base, etc.) the most likely target was a second plane headed for the Pentagon. I think the terrorists expected the first plane for each target to be downed, so they planned for two planes for each target. The targets chosen were those which had been a focus of anti-US propaganda in the regions they operated in, not chosen because US citizens would immediately identify them as attacks on US heritage/culture. Terrorist organizations usually fail in making their targets fear them, but successful attacks on their targets increase their power/prestige within their own country/culture. The 9/11 attacks were not against US citizens, but symbols of US imperialism. Anyway, that’s what I think.
The tactic used in 9/11 will no longer work. But what is very likely to happen are smaller attacks on US installations. Including terrorist attacks within the US. This would be a mistake, in my opinion, as terrorist attacks within the US is far more likely to generate support for boots-on-the-ground in Iran. Right now the war is being questioned by a lot of people in the US, it’s even possible (if unlikely) that Congress will act to limit/stop it. However, if terrorist attacks occur within the borders of the US the citizenry will quickly turn to supporting the war. If the Iranian government can appear to be submissive and subdued simply because of he bombing campaign, this conflict may be over quickly. If I was in the Iranian councils, I would suggest that targeting US military installations in the region, and showing the host countries that having US military bases in their countries will lead to terrorist attacks, would be a more productive strategy to gain influence in the region. It is much harder to get US citizens riled up about attacks on US military bases in other countries, the general feeling appears to be that the people on US military bases have volunteered to put themselves in a hazardous situation, and attacks should be expected. But a single, or a series, of terrorist attacks on the scale of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, clearly linked to Iran, would justify boots-on-the-ground. Cause a little bit of pain in a bully, and the beatings get rougher.
This is a stupid, stupid, conflict. Started by two leaders who think their citizens will rally around their respective flags and forget about the increasing problems their leadership is causing within the countries they are respectively leading. The Iranian leadership knows this, and know that their citizens are being killed because the leaders of two nations have insufficient checks on their power within their home countries to stop this from happening. The Iranians best hope is to live through this and develop nuclear capability so that the bully is frightened of picking on them. I’d rather not see more countries get nuclear weapons, but as long as individual leaders of nations can unilaterally start a war it appears to be the best, and only working, strategy.