11 September 2001

About

September 2010
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

11 September 2001

11 September 2010

George Rebane

Amid smoke, rubble, and tears,
see that we are still here.
And we will remember.

Posted in Culture Comments, Happenings, Our Country

39 responses to “11 September 2001”

Kim Pruett

11 September 2010

I will never forget that day, thoughts and prayers go out to all those who have lost their lives in the war and on that horrible day. 9/11 is our generations Pearl Harbor.

LikeLike
George Rebane

11 September 2010

9/11 is definitely not our Pearl Harbor. And our political leaders, like President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg, calling 9/11 a “public tragedy” this morning in ceremonies across the land, soil the memory of those who died and still suffer from the murderous events of that day.
Pearl Harbor was a dastardly attack by an empire that wanted to weaken us so that they could consolidate their hegemony over sources of natural resources. Japan had no intent or even a dream of conquering the United States, let alone western civilization.
Islam is a religion of conquest that has had its aim to conquer Europe and western civilization since the Middle Ages. In its own words it states this daily to the Muslim street through its media, mosques, and madrassas. It correctly teaches its youth that the fundamentalist belief system of Islam cannot survive if it attempts to coexist with the west. Therefore, on 9/11 the war on the west was re-declared using terror, the only strategy that might possibly bring down open societies based on weakened/abandoned cultures.
Hurricane Katrina, the Haitian earthquake, even the Gulf oil spill were ‘public tragedies’. To diminish 9/11 as another public tragedy is to deny history and declare to the Islamists that their assessment of their enemy, and their ongoing terror campaign are correct and effective.
After Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said, ‘I am afraid that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.’ Until we recognize the true nature of this conflict and can convince Islam that they will not succeed in destroying our civilization, this war will only worsen in the coming years. Today our political leaders and their ideological supporters are again ensuring that the sleeping giant will not awaken, and that Islam need fear no terrible resolve.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

11 September 2010

Japan is a nation, Islam is a religion. The attack on Pearl Harbor was the official act of a nation. The attack on 9/11 was the act of a band of vicious murderers and terrorists, but not a nation. That is the difference.
There are hundreds of millions of practicing Muslims who have no aim to conquer, did not declare war, did not use terror as a weapon, and only wish to live in peace. Our enemy is the terrorist, who would bring this fight to our shores or our interests, not the nations who would not countenance terror, many of whom are in their own struggle to overcome the forces of terror.
If we state this struggle as a religious war, if we pursue our security as a war between the Islamic and Christian religions, we have become the terrorist, and helped them achieve their aims. This is exactly what Bin Laden and his forces want. This is the definition of asymmetrical warfare. By pushing us to define it as war between religions, they create a war between religions. That is their aim, and if we do it, will ultimately be the source of their power.
This is a secular society, not a Christian society, and pursuing war as a religious struggle is directly antithetical to our western values and principles. The terrorists win.
I grive for the loss of almost 3000 people 9 years ago today, including one dear friend whose memory will be with me forever. To use their deaths as an excuse to pursue a holy war between the Christian and Islamic faiths would be a perversion of their memories.
Bless every one of our missing friends.

LikeLike
George Rebane

11 September 2010

SteveF raises an interesting and prevalent perspective that undelines my point while misunderstanding it. A careful reading of my comment reveals no mention of a war between religions. Wars between civilizations have occurred before – e.g. between the post-Roman kingdoms of western Europe and the splintered tribes of eastern Europe, and between the European civilizaton and the native Indian civilizations of the western hemisphere.
That Japan was a nation illuminates the point that Pearl Harbor and its intents did not give rise to a war between civilizations (as was corroborated in its aftermath). However, Islamists arise from many nation-states (including our own), not for the purpose of limited gains, but global ones instead. It is a war between one civilization, advised and informed by a militant religion, and another civilization that is now predominantly secular. We must believe them when they say that, because in warfare it takes only one to tango while we remain in denial.
SteveF, and those who think like he, according to their own words are a comfort to and the great hope of Islamists who use scripturally condoned terror as their tactic. It is another form of the paradigm that weakened Rome to the point that the more primitive Visigoths could storm its walls (now 1,600 years ago to almost the day).
As we crumble, the silent ‘moderate’ Muslim majorities around the world will NOT rise to rein in their murderous hordes – they can play both sides of the street, and instead will continue to quietly celebrate terrosit victories as they build their Cordoba Mosques.

LikeLike
Bob Hobert

11 September 2010

Ah, 2007. Where was the outrage then???
Christians in Gaza Fear for Their Lives as Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/285123/christians_in_gaza_fear_for_their_lives.html

LikeLike
Steve Frisch

11 September 2010

Your entire post frames this issue as a war between religions over the future of western civilization. You may mask it as “civilizations” but you define our civilization all over this blog as a Christian civilization. You can’t have it both ways buddy. You can’t fight in one place to define western civilization as Christian then claim its secular when its convenient. Thats dishonest.
I don’t know what history you read, but your world view is positively medieval. You act like such an intellectual. How is it that a man can be simultaneously anti-intellectual and cultivate the image of a scholar?

LikeLike
Steve Frisch

11 September 2010

By the way, I am not misunderstanding your point, I am naming your behavior. You, George, are anti anti-Islamic racist. I am saying it over at Pelline’s so I might as well say it here and get it bounced.

LikeLike
George Rebane

11 September 2010

SteveF, by positing your assertions of what my ‘true’ and unstated intentions are, attacking the messenger, and not addressing the ideas, you have successfully brought another dialogue between us to a close.
See also http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/09/the-liberal-mind-messing-with-the-messenger.html
But, as always, you do add a unique diversity to the discussion. Thank you.

LikeLike
Steve Frisch

11 September 2010

That should of course read “an anti-Islamic racist”.
Sorry for the confusion.

LikeLike
D. King

11 September 2010

Thanks for this post George. I remember the
day well. I was in Italy packing up after we
stopped the Serbian slaughter of Muslims
in Bosnia. A few days later we got the call to
palletize, and head to the middle-east for
Operation Enduring Freedom.
My thoughts are with the families of those
murdered on that day.

LikeLike
D. King

11 September 2010

Steve, aside from the fact that Islam is
not a race, you may be depleting the
shock value you desire by over use.
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/168.jpg

LikeLike
George Rebane

11 September 2010

Sage advice DKing (great cartoon), but we must remember that we all have to play the only hand that we have been dealt. For most of us that is the starting point of compassion.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

11 September 2010

To demand conversion or suffer death….muslims have more in common with Hitler’s Nazi’s than they do with any civilized religion.
To call muslims ‘peaceful’ is to call the sun dark and cold.
I guess I just have a problem with a religion which demands that it’s followers cut me and my family’s heads off.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

11 September 2010

McD says it all. As D.King pointed out Islam is certainly not a race, but George and his friends treat it as one, and give it the same respect that southern slaveowners did slaves.
Sad day in America. Adieu crackers.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

11 September 2010

“Adieu crackers.”…
George, I stopped counting after Frisch’s 3rd PROMISE to leave your blog… shall we hold our breath this time?
Quran 8:12, “The Spoils,” Dawood, p. 177
“I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.” http://www.truthbeknown.com/islamquotes.htm

LikeLike
Bob Hobert

11 September 2010

Steve…I am beginning to view your postings in the context of race – the heads-in-the-sand race to islamic serfdom.
Question – were those the moderate muslims millions rioting across the mideast today? Or just the terrorists?
Wake up. At least stop snoring.

LikeLike
George Rebane

11 September 2010

Holding our collective breaths is definitely not recommended Mikey. It truly is a puzzle as to what prompts his frequent returns. It may be a simple matter of acquired backspin from the door as it hits him when he storms out. Then again, the man may have a genuine desire to engage in discussing something beyond scooplets or railing to a less endowed audience. It’s really hard to tell.
But truth be known, his visitations are much appreciated, since otherwise we would be speaking about hypotheticals when we characterize the wit and wisdom of the progressive left. The offerings that he and his leave here are truly enduring monuments to another reality that require more than the occasional or casual inspection. For after all, we live in their midst.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

11 September 2010

At a minimum his past comments would serve as citations for future “liberal minds” posts 🙂 (maybe one about whether Liberals value a person for keeping his/her word?) promising to leave multiple times only to return as the ‘local’ example and the hero of the progressives on the national level:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9NF9zH5ikM

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

11 September 2010

Because Frisch is a self proclaimed atheist I give no credence to his screed about religion. When you believe in nothing you will believe anything. When a liberal loses an argument they always resort to the racist card. Americans of goodwill have now awoken and are laughing at the overuse and diminished affect of the term racist. Frisch tries to appear smart but he is actually quite ignorant. Especially about history. George’s version is correct, Frisch’s is not. Islam is intrinsically intertwined with governance in most countries it is practiced in. Sharia Law and the rule of Mullahs and the attempts and desires to re-establish caliphates are the primary goals of Islam. The intolerance of Islam is breathtaking. They have a 1400 year track record of conquest. The only exception to their murderous rule was a period of enlightenment by the Moors of North Africa and Spain. So once again the defeated liberal lashes out and name calls then runs and hides. Most of the liberals at the FUE’s blog act like Frisch. Arrogant and full of venom.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

11 September 2010

Adieu crackers was not necessarily a permanent statement, then again you are telling like it is so I should just let it go. McD is wanting to kick ass, Bob wants to let his inherent racism out, and Todd is just ranting incoherently while George eggs them on to their penultimate anger and frustration.
Ah, morning in America.

LikeLike
Mikey McD

11 September 2010

Where to file steve??? 1.)among the ignorant who went along with Hitler’s collection/murder of Jews 2.)among the ‘freed’ Americans who turned “monarchist” circa 1800 3.)among the emotional driven, politician/lobbysist at heart, hypocrites of governments past and present 4.) among the selfish true believers in all causes that attack the accomplished/successful 5.)among those that swear to leave and always come back or 6.) simply delete

LikeLike
D. King

11 September 2010

“Adieu crackers”
LOL!
Steve, your killing me here!
What’s next?…Dirty Philistines!

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

11 September 2010

I think Steve is babbling again. Has anyone seen the self important posts he does over on the FUE’s blog? They are so long one has to use the no doze because they are so boring. A liberal sure likes to read his own nothing words.

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

11 September 2010

This is hardly progress.
I want to go back to what Kim wrote: “I will never forget that day, thoughts and prayers go out to all those who have lost their lives in the war and on that horrible day. 9/11 is our generation’s Pearl Harbor.”
George, you took Kim to task a bit for comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, and I get your point that WWI and WWII were all about territory and resources and world power. But once MAD was invented, resource control became much more nuanced and I think you absolutely can compare 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, at least metaphorically. Look at how both events effected the citizens of the countries that became involved in the subsequent conflagration. Global war is global war, even when casualties become much more localized and contained.
Talk to Greg Zaller, he has described to me the 30 schools he has built in Pakistan during the last 3 years, to counter the madrassas. This is the working strategy–Lead By Example.
Back to 9/11. I was at the Civil War re-enactment in Nevada City today with my kids. They were actually there for the last day of swimming at the public pool for 2010, but the closing of the pool at 4 pm coincided exactly with a re-enactment of a famous battle of the American Civil War.
I have seen several of these over the years, and they are intense. The cannon fire is very loud, and watching the men load muskets and toss Ketchum grenades, with soldiers falling on both sides, is very moving.
Having never experienced live combat I suppose that is why I am able to tolerate it, though just barely due to the loved ones I lost during the Vietnam War.
We all come from a place of battle. The USA changed significantly after 9/11, and I view those changes with a healthy skepticism. Do we really want AT&T putting a data-collection box in a secret room off the NOC in San Francisco? Probably not.
I would also suggest that we look at the 9/11 event as closely as possible. I was disturbed to see several young men from our community protesting at the west entry to Pioneer Park. What were they protesting? Why, the “truthiness” of 9/11 itself. They were “Truthers” and I was saddened by their presence.
There are a lot of people in this country who believe that 9/11 was a gov’t operation. Some wear tinfoil hats, some are offbeat “scientists,” and some are not yet fully developed. But this 9/11 weird-belief phenomenon is not healthy, it detracts from what should be our focus: ensuring long-term access to freedom and liberty for every human being on our planet. But these folks exist because there are unanswered questions.
There are many chapters of 9/11 that are still being written. That’s just the way it goes. Time heals all, but this conflict is about halfway through is my guess.
I read the 9/11 commission report backwards and forwards, and I have spent considerable time trying to figure out what happened. Here is my take on the event:
1. Hijacked planes full of people hit the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.
2. There was a gov’t/military security exercise that morning to simulate terrorist planes flying into buildings, which compromised the military response.
3. There were lots of warnings that something was up, going back 2 years. The USS Coal incident was actually the first volley.
4. The pilots who flew those airliners were not just Cessna ticket holders.
I’ll stop there. More to come

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

12 September 2010

Yeah well for any sophisticated reader what I am really saying is that as long as we (and George) make this about a struggle between Christianity and Islam, or a struggle between western civilization and Islam, we are playing into the terrorist hands, and enabling their goals, by elevating the struggle to a war of cultures. They win if this is about Islam against the world. That is the genius of their strategy; to use the weight of western military power and media culture against the great satan. It is jujitsu, and they are using your weight against you. That is their asymmetrical strategy.
But, of course, to make any point here is pointless, your minds and actions will never change, and to make any statement, one must be so outrageous that it elicits exactly the type of reaction that will illustrate that point to outside readers.
Kind of asymmetrical blogging;)

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

12 September 2010

It is historically accurate to state that Islam is a religion of compliance by force. It takes many forms of terror thrown up against the wall to see what will stick. You can nuance all you want and by doing so the terrorits thank you. They want you t think they are a religion of peace so they have time to sneak up behind you and take you out. Read the conquests of the Middle East by Ghengis Khan’s relatives. Most countries embracing Islam are not secular. The religion is tied to governance. The Koran is filled with requirements for adherents to kill the infidel. Jihad is mandated. Yes, it is a war and it is at every level of thought and action. 9/11 would occur every day if we were not diligent. Greg Zaller is to be commended for his attempts to bridge the gap but it is a fruitless one. Islam will not allow Zaller’s desires to come to fruition.

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 September 2010

That’s an encompassing and useful essay MichaelA. A lot to get one’s arms around, so I’ll try to just address one notion. But before that, to set the record straight I did not take Kim “to task”. Kim and her family are friends and we work together on a number of community projects. But I do disagree with her assertion equating Pearl Harbor and 9/11. I believe the differences are significant, material, and important to understand, and I gave a reasoned basis for that assessment. On Ruminations I have tried, with limited success, to create an environment where individuals and their ideas (messenger and message) are differentiated. This is a work in process and I don’t expect uniform success with all RR readers.
A point that is very difficult to get people on the left to address – they just talk right past it – is the prevalent message of global jihad that is delivered daily to the Muslim street by their government sponsored organs. The Muslims themselves demonstrate their widespread and not-so-latent anger by taking to the streets at a moments ‘insult’ to renew their vows of hatred based on their ‘religion of peace’. In the west’s politically correct circles, we just ignore that and talk of small terrorist cells. Why is that?

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

12 September 2010

The 8 largest nations with Islamic Populations are:
Indonesia—-240,271,000 people government is a secular republic universal religious suffrage
Pakistan—174,000,000 people government is a secular Islamic republic universal religious suffrage
India—160,000,000 people government is a secular republic universal religious suffrage
Bangladesh—145,000,000 people government is a secular republic universal religious suffrage
Egypt—78,000,0000 people government is a secular republic universal religious suffrage
Nigeria—-78,000,000 people government is a secular republic universal religious suffrage
Turkey—-73,000,000 people government is a secular republic universal religious suffrage
Iran—-73,000,000 government is an Islamic republic no universal religious suffrage
My point, you have to go to the 8th largest Islamic country in the world before you get to a country that does not recognize universal religious suffrage.
Source is the CIA World Factbook.
Todd, do you ever do any research?

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

12 September 2010

By the way the Indian population is the Islamic population of India, the total population is 1,156,000,000

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 September 2010

I would offer that for almost all the cited Islamic countries the practice of “universal religious suffrage” takes on the most cynical and twisted meaning of that phrase. In fact, all of them illustrate clearly the impact that a majority Muslim population has on the minorities in their land once they gain dominance.
Turkey having the most successful history of Muslims tolerating other religions was itself no paragon of such virtue. But now even that country is turning backward and, with its election to adopt a revised constitution, preparing again to become an intolerant Muslim country. (Ataturk is rolling in his grave.)
India has a Muslim minority and is an example of two-way tolerance for no one.
Islamic governance has a long history of intolerance the intensity of which has grown in the last century instead of diminishing. We all recognize that Catholic lands evinced similar intolerance that did not begin to abate until that start of the Reformation.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

12 September 2010

See, there is no talking to these guys. You can show them the direct facts that counter their point, “Most countries embracing Islam are not secular”, and it still does not matter. These are the definitions of the governments based on the CIA analysis. What the heck more could you guys want?
To state that the status of minorities in these states is a function of religion rather than a blend of political, economic and historical forces, largely based on subregional identity and tribal or nomadic influence, in addition partly to religious doctrine, is just nonsense.
And the final comment, I love the slyness in it. Intolerance is attributed to ‘the Catholics’.
I agree there are threats to secular societies in countries with a predominantly Islamic population. the point i was making was that your actions and strategies would make those threats greater, not reduce them. You are playing into Bin Laden’s hands.
By the way, anyone see Fareed Zakaria GPS this morning? seems all of his experts would agree with me!

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

12 September 2010

If Mr. Frisch actually did more than cut and aste and delved further into the countries on his list he would see and understand that his simplistic view is foolish. I would dare say anyone trying to burn a Koran in Indonesia would be not long for this world and there is probably a “law” against it there. The same goes for the rest. The problem with a atheist trying to make sense of religious motivations is they have no history of self sacrifice and humbleness required to really know what they are talking about. Mr. Frisch fits that problem to a tee.

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 September 2010

Update on Turkey – The Turkish voters just approved constitutional changes which eases its path back to a Muslim theocracy. The favorable vote was a significant 58%.
I attribute America’s self flagellation and softening stand against Islamic governments and encroachment as the most significant factor contributing to this vote. Islamic politicians have little opposition to their message that America is a corrupt and weakening state, and no longer a reliable ally to the secular Turkey of the past. This is of a piece with Turkey becoming the Islamic hegemon of the near and mid-east (i.e. I agree with George Friedman of Stratfor).

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

12 September 2010

George,
You wrote: “In the west’s politically correct circles, we just ignore that and talk of small terrorist cells. Why is that?”
I really think it’s more complicated than that. I agree that many progressives, independents, libertarians, and even some Democrats and Republicans, are not willing to discuss how nation states unfriendly to the USA foment almost a branding of global jihad.
I don’t know if you caught Bob Shieffer on “Face the Nation” this morning, he had on his program Tom Kean, Co-chairman 9/11 Commission, and Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.
Rep. Ellison is a Muslim and swore his oath of office on the Koran. Kean described the newest threat to our national security, which is home-grown terrorists of the Timothy McVeigh variety but this time from the Islamic community.
We certainly have our hands full trying to understand how best to respond to threats to our national security in the 21st century. We are on new ground.
Michael A.

LikeLike
Russ Steele

12 September 2010

George Friedman saw this coming several years ago. I was having a hard time with his analysis, until I started to do more research on my own. The Turks learned a valuable lesson when they applied to become NATO members. They learned the west cannot be trusted and their future is in the east, not the west.

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 September 2010

MichaelA – agreed, and I believe I have covered that complication before and also in my today’s ‘Reflections on 11 September 2010’ post. See if I have missed something. The situation with deep cover and/or latent domestic Muslim end-timers is the most complex of all. Two previous progressive Presidents (Wilson and Roosevelt) ‘solved’ it with concentration camps. Depends on what happens, but the current one also has that option.
Russ – agreed. Turkey’s voting today was more of a testimony to its pulling away from the west. Have also covered this Turkish strategy in my 15feb09 ‘The Next 100 Years’ and later posts. http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2009/02/the-next-100-years.html

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

12 September 2010

I agree, Russ. NATO turning down Turkey was idiotic. At the time of that decision, NATO policy makers were still too focused on the former Soviet bloc.
This was a very costly strategic error. It also made no sense given the Turks cooperation with various NATO initiatives beginning in the early 1960s.

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 September 2010

Gentlemen – I think you have Turkey’s memberships in NATO and EU confused. Turkey became a NATO member in 1952 to the great consternation of the USSR. The US had a major military presence there at the ‘soft underbelly’ of the Soviets. In the late 1950s we stationed Jupiter missiles in Turkey aimed at the USSR heartland. Recall it was part of Kennedy’s deal for a face-saving standdown with Khruschev after the Cuban missile crisis for us to remove the Jupiters from Turkey (which was a gimme because the damn things were tactically worthless and the new longer range Atlas had just been activated).
Turkey has been kept on the doorstep to EU membership since 1987. And today it’s not sure it really wants to join even if finally invited. It may have to bail out flakes like Spain, Portugal, and its former colony and arch-irritant Greece. Nevertheless, denial of EU membership has been used internally to keep its Muslim population at a pre-boiling point – that temperature can be turned up at any time as Turkey looks eastward toward its future.

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

13 September 2010

Whoops. Right you are. EU is what I meant. And yes, they probably aren’t interested anymore.

LikeLike