What exactly happened on 9/11/01?

[El_Gato]

The reason I ask this question is that based on the coverage the media allows these days regarding the terrorist attacks on 9/11, someone who wasn't aware of them then would certainly get NO history, background, or perspective on them now.

Michael Savage raised this issue the other day: Why has the American mainstream media placed a gag order on the images of 9/11?

We routinely see pictures of various attacks/battles/incidents from other wars such as Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, and various Vietnam scenes. We CONSTANTLY are reminded in numerous ways of the Nazi concentration camps and the atrocities committed there. Anytime John McCain appears anywhere, we are reminded that he was a POW in Vietnam.

Yet when it comes to 9/11, you can almost HEAR the media whispering "shh! Don't talk about that unless you absolutely have to! Don't EVER show any images of that day!"

My question is simply, WHY? Why has the press decided that they can't or shouldn't show the images of 9/11? Is it because they don't want to offend the victims families or survivors of the attacks? Is it because they don't want to offend Muslims? Is it because they don't want the American people to remain angry at the terrorists? Is it because that anger might bolster patriotism and support for President Bush and the war in Iraq, similar to what we experienced immediately following the attacks?

I'm curious of your thoughts on this; perhaps some of you have encountered stories/commentaries regarding this 9/11 "censorship". If so, I'd appreciate the links if you have them. I'll admit that I can't figure out why the media has "hushed" this topic and I'm hoping for some insight...

[SonomaCat]

It sounds like Michael Savage is just continuing his trend of constantly trying to conjure up liberal-pinko-dope-smoker mainstream media conspiracy theories.

Maybe the simple truth is that people don't really want to see it anymore. Is it news? No. Did we all get the idea the first 10,000 times we saw it? I think so. Has anybody forgotten about it? Nobody I have ever met. So what possible reason would a news outlet have for continuing to show it, outside of using it for overt propoganda purposes?

I know that some people like to use 911 for their political gain, but it's not the responsiblity of journalists to do that. And, frankly, I have no desire to see those images anymore. They depress the hell out of me since I have personal connections to that event. There are a lot of people who never want to relive those images ever again, and there is no reason for the press to bring them up again, unless there is something topical in the news relating to them.

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but it kind of distrurbs me that you seem to be suggesting that we should be (or that the press is unpatriotic because they are avoiding) using the 911 attacks to bolster partiotism to support a war that has nothing to do with 911 (Hey you guys, remember when we got our asses handed to us by the terrorists and they murdered thousands of innocent people in New York! Yeah, because of that, let's rally behind our President in a war that has nothing to do with that terrorist attack. Ready? Gooooo USA!!!!). I don't know, that whole line of thinking is pretty morbid, which is why it disturbed me when Bush used it in his last speech (but with a touch more subtlety).

And I do hear references to 911 all of the time -- seemingly just about on par with how often their relevance comes up in daily events.

And, ironically, if you do want to see images of and ad naseum references to 911, all you have to do is go see the MM film. Speaking of using 911 images for propoganda purposes....

[Bleedinbluengold]

It wouldn't sell newspapers, nor would it drive up tv news ratings...that's why I think mainstream media has moved on.

conservative talk radio hosts know that beating the 9-11 drum will keep their ratings high enough to justify continuing to produce their talk show...that's why i think conservative radio talk shows beat that drum.

i don't think it's any more complicated than that...

[SonomaCat]

I need to start taking notes on BBG's posting style. He makes 10x as much sense as I ever do with 1/100 the amount of words.

Exellent points, and I think you nailed it.

[El_Gato]

...Maybe the simple truth is that people don't really want to see it anymore. Is it news? No. Did we all get the idea the first 10,000 times we saw it? I think so. Has anybody forgotten about it? Nobody I have ever met...

I'm sorry, but then why do we see footage of WWII more often than 9/11? Is it news? No. Did we all get the idea the first time we saw the USS Arizona burning? Or the soldiers raising the US flag? Or the flashes of nuclear bombs & references to Hiroshima & Nagasaki? I think so. Has anybody forgotten about it? Nobody I have ever met. But I guarantee you those images still have appeared more in the mainstream press the last 2 years than any 9/11 image.

...There are a lot of people who never want to relive those images ever again, and there is no reason for the press to bring them up again, unless there is something topical in the news relating to them...

I'm pretty sure there are FAR more people whose lives were impacted by Vietnam and WWII than 9/11 and who would prefer not to have those images shown to them. There is really no relevant reason for the media to show images of nuclear blasts or Holocaust victims or ships burning in Pearl Harbor or soldiers rounding prisoners in Vietnam. Why then, does the media routinely do so? Why is it OK, in their minds, to subject Vietnam and WWII era folks to those "offensive" images, but not 9/11?

I DO believe that the folks in charge of "the news" at ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN are, in fact, attempting to "dull" our memories of 9/11. I do think they're trying to diminish our emotions over that event; I just haven't quite figured out the reason why.

[iaafan]

Either what BAC and BBG said or they (the conservative media) are afraid of what we will find out if we dig any deeper.

[iaafan]

Quite a few people think the whole thing was set up by Bush and his cronies. But they are labeled liberals. So if anyone wants more media coverage about 9/11 it's them, not the conservatives. I see you only assume that "IF" there was a conspiracy amongst all the media (pretty tough to swallow that one) that it would be coming from the liberal side of the fence. There are just as many reasons why the conservatives don't want this on the air. But either way it's a bit of a stretch.

[SonomaCat]

...Maybe the simple truth is that people don't really want to see it anymore. Is it news? No. Did we all get the idea the first 10,000 times we saw it? I think so. Has anybody forgotten about it? Nobody I have ever met...

I'm sorry, but then why do we see footage of WWII more often than 9/11? Is it news? No. Did we all get the idea the first time we saw the USS Arizona burning? Or the soldiers raising the US flag? Or the flashes of nuclear bombs & references to Hiroshima & Nagasaki? I think so. Has anybody forgotten about it? Nobody I have ever met. But I guarantee you those images still have appeared more in the mainstream press the last 2 years than any 9/11 image.

...There are a lot of people who never want to relive those images ever again, and there is no reason for the press to bring them up again, unless there is something topical in the news relating to them...

I'm pretty sure there are FAR more people whose lives were impacted by Vietnam and WWII than 9/11 and who would prefer not to have those images shown to them. There is really no relevant reason for the media to show images of nuclear blasts or Holocaust victims or ships burning in Pearl Harbor or soldiers rounding prisoners in Vietnam. Why then, does the media routinely do so? Why is it OK, in their minds, to subject Vietnam and WWII era folks to those "offensive" images, but not 9/11?

I DO believe that the folks in charge of "the news" at ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN are, in fact, attempting to "dull" our memories of 9/11. I do think they're trying to diminish our emotions over that event; I just haven't quite figured out the reason why.

We see images of WWII constantly for one reason -- the History Channel. I don't see those images anywhere else. People are fascinated by that these days (it's a war glory thing spurred by lots of period books on the topic, movies, and the fact that we won it convincingly).

There have also been anniversaries of WWII battles going on lately, so maybe you have seen some WWII footage in reference to those events?

I don't see a lot of Vietnam images unless I go looking for them (even the History Channel avoids that one for the most part). People don't like talking about that war very much (and if it was brought up a lot, conservatives would be pissed because it would be the antiwar folks who would be beating that drum). The fact that some politician's legacy is that they fought in 'Nam isn't the press bringing that up -- it's the politicians bringing that up for their own stature.

I just don't think there is anything at all to this little theory. People don't want to see or hear anything more about 9-11, and I can't think of a single reason why we should.

[El_Gato]

I'm sorry if the thought offends you, BAC, but just as today's events in London clearly demonstrated, WE ARE AT WAR.

That being said, I feel we DO need to continue to be reminded by whatever means necessary of that fact. The terrorists aren't going to go away just because we forget and stop talking about what they did on 9/11. The more forgetful & complacent we get, the more likely it becomes that they'll attack us again and the easier we make it for them to do so. I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with reminding Americans DAILY of what those soulless bastards did to thousands of innocent people that day. If we are going to hurt international terrorism enough to keep it off our soil, it will have to be because we remain determined to do so. The sooner we "forgive and forget", the sooner we'll see another attack, probably far more severe than the last...

The more our determination to end (or at least greatly cripple) global terrorism erodes, the stronger and bolder the terrorists become. The ONLY way we win this war is to remain determined to do so. In my book, anything that strengthens that determination is good while anything that weakens it is good for the terrorists.

An interesting thought just crept into my feable brain: What if a group of American soldiers did in Iraq or Iran what Al Qaida did in America on 9/11? Do you think the U.S. media would ever go more than 5 minutes without showing it or referring to it, even years later? Just look at how they handle (and drool over) our "atrocities" (yeah, right) at Abu Grahib (sp?) and Guantanomo Bay.

Sorry, too much deep thought for 1 posting; more later...

[SonomaCat]

Oh, I see your point. You think we should be reminded to be pissed off every single day with images of violence against Americans. So you essentially want our press to act like Al Jazeera? A pissed off population is a good thing? Maybe we can pour into the streets to express our rage and overcome our feelings of powerlessness by coming together under a flag of hatred and anger. We could do chants, and we could call people names, and we could do everything in our power to limit people's exposure to alternate ideas and cover up any mistakes that we make with Jedi mind tricks, such as blaming liberals for everything.

Oh wait, maybe that's the role that right wing talk radio and Fox News TV already occupies.

The rest of us like to make our decisions and live our lives with a little less emotional propoganda, weighing facts and using reason, while always remembering the ugliness of the past, but not using it as a hammer to try to scare and inflame passions in people for political capital. We don't forgive the atrocities that have occurred in the past, but we don't let our emotions overcome good judgment, either. We want to see the terrorists defeated and eliminated from this earth, but we want our efforts focused in a way that thinks through the long-term impacts of our actions so that we reach that end as opposed to making things worse. We want to be the country that takes the high road, does things the right way, and has the admiration of the world so that we can lead effectively as opposed to just striking out in anger.

For those reasons, I like the fact that our press isn't a state-run propoganda machine that has 9-11 images on a constant loop. If I wanted to live in that sort of country, I would gone radical Islam a long time ago.

And I'm sorry if it offends you that I don't think that the American people are stupid enough to need to be reminded of 9-11 on a constant basis. Most of us have pretty good memories. For those that don't, there's always Micheal Savage.

[Ponycat]

I think "9/11" has become more of a catch word now than any thing and it gets thrown around like a football, but if people would actually think about what really happened there everytime they said it, it would have the meaning it deserves and not just a sound bite for politicians.

I think the images have been strangly missing, and not sure if that is bad or good, but I do think it contributes to the desensatization of 9/11 and I'm pretty sure that is not good.

[SonomaCat]

The images were jarring, but the smell is what sticks with me the most. Neither are memories that fade quickly.

[El_Gato]

In a perfect world, BAC, in a perfect world...

First of all, I didn't go to the sarcastic lengths you did in expressing my hope that Americans DON'T EVER FORGET WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11. Without resolve, there is no way we win this war. Without resolve, we open the door for the terrorists, who will no doubt attempt attacks even more savage than those 4 years ago. With that being said, I have no problem with the media "slapping us in the face" periodically, to make sure that we are steadfast behind the efforts to crush terrorism. Please note that I did NOT say to support the war in Iraq; I believe they are mostly, but not completely, independent.

Unfortunately, the "average American's" attention span is about 1.5 seconds longer than the average sound-bite. That is what worries me.

I am CONVINCED that we are moving closer to "surrendering" in this war on terrorists. Bush is taking so much heat for his handling of the war that I fear he is going to significantly "scale it back" within the next year or 2 in an effort to appease the "global community" and the American left and in an attempt help the Republicans retain the White House. The lack of "reminders" of 9/11 from the media is helping to lead us down that path; again, I feel that the media blackout IS eroding our resolve against the terrorists, whether that is their intent or not. With the media's censorship and our own selfish tunnel-vision, within a few years we will have significantly reduced our emotions over what happened on 9/11, at least until the next attack occurs.

BAC, I'm curious, do you find the "propaganda" that was used in WWII offensive or wrong? Do you think it was inappropriate for the government or the media to keep our emotions running high so that our resolve remained steadfast despite the horrific loss of American lives? Would you have been demanding that we "reason" with Hitler? Would you demand that we use "good judgement" in dealing with him? Would you want us to use economic sanctions for decades before we actually took up arms against him?

I guess the real question I should ask you is: BAC, do you really think we are in the middle of a war? If not, then I can understand & accept your attitude against the media using images of 9/11. But if we are, in fact, at war, don't you think that the resolve of the American people is important, if not VITAL, in achieving victory? Whether you admit it or not (which I'm sure you won't), within a year or 2, you're going to be one of those people who has all but forgotten about 9/11 right up until the point where the Golden Gate bridge is reduced to slag by a suitcase nuke. In this war, I'd rather err on the side of offense & aggression, rather than finding out too late that we'd lost...

[Ponycat]

My brother agrees with you on the stink but still says seeing it is what sticks with him the most.

[SonomaCat]

In a perfect world, BAC, in a perfect world...

First of all, I didn't go to the sarcastic lengths you did in expressing my hope that Americans DON'T EVER FORGET WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11. Without resolve, there is no way we win this war. Without resolve, we open the door for the terrorists, who will no doubt attempt attacks even more savage than those 4 years ago. With that being said, I have no problem with the media "slapping us in the face" periodically, to make sure that we are steadfast behind the efforts to crush terrorism. Please note that I did NOT say to support the war in Iraq; I believe they are mostly, but not completely, independent.

Unfortunately, the "average American's" attention span is about 1.5 seconds longer than the average sound-bite. That is what worries me.

I am CONVINCED that we are moving closer to "surrendering" in this war on terrorists. Bush is taking so much heat for his handling of the war that I fear he is going to significantly "scale it back" within the next year or 2 in an effort to appease the "global community" and the American left and in an attempt help the Republicans retain the White House. The lack of "reminders" of 9/11 from the media is helping to lead us down that path; again, I feel that the media blackout IS eroding our resolve against the terrorists, whether that is their intent or not. With the media's censorship and our own selfish tunnel-vision, within a few years we will have significantly reduced our emotions over what happened on 9/11, at least until the next attack occurs.

BAC, I'm curious, do you find the "propaganda" that was used in WWII offensive or wrong? Do you think it was inappropriate for the government or the media to keep our emotions running high so that our resolve remained steadfast despite the horrific loss of American lives? Would you have been demanding that we "reason" with Hitler? Would you demand that we use "good judgement" in dealing with him? Would you want us to use economic sanctions for decades before we actually took up arms against him?

I guess the real question I should ask you is: BAC, do you really think we are in the middle of a war? If not, then I can understand & accept your attitude against the media using images of 9/11. But if we are, in fact, at war, don't you think that the resolve of the American people is important, if not VITAL, in achieving victory? Whether you admit it or not (which I'm sure you won't), within a year or 2, you're going to be one of those people who has all but forgotten about 9/11 right up until the point where the Golden Gate bridge is reduced to slag by a suitcase nuke. In this war, I'd rather err on the side of offense & aggression, rather than finding out too late that we'd lost...

Yes, we are in a war ... one whose genesis had NOTHING to do with terrorism and NOTHING to do with 9-11. That's where your entire argument breaks down.

We do need to remain vigilant against terrorism, and that war is mostly invisible. The visible portion is being fought in Afghanistan, and it would be great if we had more resources devoted to that particular mission. Unfortunately, we are creating new legions of terrorists in Iraq right now, but there's no amount of circular logic that will get us to an alternate universe where 9-11 can be a legitimate battle cry for supporting Bush's decisions regarding Iraq.

People don't need to be in constant state of fear and anger in order to allow our government to remain focused on defeating terrorism. Fear and anger are only tools used to political ends, especially in less civilized countries.

And I will NEVER forget about 9-11 (and FO by the way for suggesting that I would -- it means a helluva lot more to me that just a goddamn partisan war cry). I just don't need to have it shoved down my throat constantly. If anything, that kind of stuff would desensitize people to the images and the whole thing would just become some surreal marketing program of the government. That is not what any of us really want.

You can compare WWII to Iraq all you want -- it's a hollow comparison.

[SonomaCat]

Question: Are some people trying to turn "9-11" into a contemporary remake of "Remember the Maine"?

[Hell's Bells]

Question: Are some people trying to turn "9-11" into a contemporary remake of "Remember the Maine"?

i would not call 9-11 as a remember the main type of event because the spanish-american war was a false war that was created by the media. however, i think that it can be and should be used as a clarion call for the western states to be prepaired to defend themselves from islamic terrorists. ooh nothing bad happened in NY on 9-11, only about 4 thousand people died......right?

[Hell's Bells]

In a perfect world, BAC, in a perfect world...

First of all, I didn't go to the sarcastic lengths you did in expressing my hope that Americans DON'T EVER FORGET WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11. Without resolve, there is no way we win this war. Without resolve, we open the door for the terrorists, who will no doubt attempt attacks even more savage than those 4 years ago. With that being said, I have no problem with the media "slapping us in the face" periodically, to make sure that we are steadfast behind the efforts to crush terrorism. Please note that I did NOT say to support the war in Iraq; I believe they are mostly, but not completely, independent.

Unfortunately, the "average American's" attention span is about 1.5 seconds longer than the average sound-bite. That is what worries me.

I am CONVINCED that we are moving closer to "surrendering" in this war on terrorists. Bush is taking so much heat for his handling of the war that I fear he is going to significantly "scale it back" within the next year or 2 in an effort to appease the "global community" and the American left and in an attempt help the Republicans retain the White House. The lack of "reminders" of 9/11 from the media is helping to lead us down that path; again, I feel that the media blackout IS eroding our resolve against the terrorists, whether that is their intent or not. With the media's censorship and our own selfish tunnel-vision, within a few years we will have significantly reduced our emotions over what happened on 9/11, at least until the next attack occurs.

BAC, I'm curious, do you find the "propaganda" that was used in WWII offensive or wrong? Do you think it was inappropriate for the government or the media to keep our emotions running high so that our resolve remained steadfast despite the horrific loss of American lives? Would you have been demanding that we "reason" with Hitler? Would you demand that we use "good judgement" in dealing with him? Would you want us to use economic sanctions for decades before we actually took up arms against him?

I guess the real question I should ask you is: BAC, do you really think we are in the middle of a war? If not, then I can understand & accept your attitude against the media using images of 9/11. But if we are, in fact, at war, don't you think that the resolve of the American people is important, if not VITAL, in achieving victory? Whether you admit it or not (which I'm sure you won't), within a year or 2, you're going to be one of those people who has all but forgotten about 9/11 right up until the point where the Golden Gate bridge is reduced to slag by a suitcase nuke. In this war, I'd rather err on the side of offense & aggression, rather than finding out too late that we'd lost...

Yes, we are in a war ... one whose genesis had NOTHING to do with terrorism and NOTHING to do with 9-11. That's where your entire argument breaks down.

dont want to argue the validity of the iraq war on this websight but i will tell ya this...sadam had his henchmen feed people through wood chippers feet first, amongst other things, for example posessing the most modern iron maden, and i am not talking about the crappy 80's rock group...wmd's or not he had to go

We do need to remain vigilant against terrorism, and that war is mostly invisible. The visible portion is being fought in Afghanistan, and it would be great if we had more resources devoted to that particular mission. Unfortunately, we are creating new legions of terrorists in Iraq right now, but there's no amount of circular logic that will get us to an alternate universe where 9-11 can be a legitimate battle cry for supporting Bush's decisions regarding Iraq.

sooo sadam hussein did not pay the families of homicide bombers 20 grand for their loss?? trucks of wmd's weren't seem leaving for syria?

People don't need to be in constant state of fear and anger in order to allow our government to remain focused on defeating terrorism. Fear and anger are only tools used to political ends, especially in less civilized countries.

i agree with you on this only to the extent that people do need to be on the consistant lookout for terrorists/anyone that is planning on doing harm...wait thats another item i agree with bac on

And I will NEVER forget about 9-11 (and FO by the way for suggesting that I would -- it means a helluva lot more to me that just a goddamn partisan war cry). I just don't need to have it shoved down my throat constantly. If anything, that kind of stuff would desensitize people to the images and the whole thing would just become some surreal marketing program of the government. That is not what any of us really want.

You can compare WWII to Iraq all you want -- it's a hollow comparison.

you can't compare ww2 to iraq...different type of war but we are fighing for basically the same reason. in the european theater we got rid of hitler, and in iraq we got rid of a hitler in the making in sadam hussein.

[SonomaCat]

Question: Are some people trying to turn "9-11" into a contemporary remake of "Remember the Maine"?

i would not call 9-11 as a remember the main type of event because the spanish-american war was a false war that was created by the media. however, i think that it can be and should be used as a clarion call for the western states to be prepaired to defend themselves from islamic terrorists. ooh nothing bad happened in NY on 9-11, only about 4 thousand people died......right?

You pretty much made my case, just without a few minor pieces that are pretty easy for everyone to fill in and some extraneous sarcasm that doesn't contradict anything I have said.

BTW, if anyone is interesting in reading a government document that specifically and unquestionably states that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and that the war in Iraq is not at all relevant to a discussion of 9-11, give the 9-11 Commission Report a thorough read.

If only everyone would come to grips with these simple facts, the entire discussion about our foreign policy would be so much less confusing for everyone. Of course, it is in the best interest of the administration and the talking heads to combine topics and confuse matters so that people don't question any of the decisions made by anyone with an R by their name. Unfortunately, coming from that confused starting point, it's difficult to come to a solid concensus in discussions as to how we should go forward and what we should learn from our mistakes.

As to the WWII/Iraq thing, Hitler had a massive army and was actively conquering Europe. Saddam was a relative street punk with a big mouth, no weapons, and wasn't invading anyone (and didn't have the ability to invade anyone). They are not the same thing. They both had to go, that is agreed, but to compare the two wars on an apples to apples basis is a stretch.

[El_Gato]

BAC,

Regarding your FO comment: Nice. Please don't start comparing your 9/11 "connections" to mine or anyone else's until/unless you know specifically what they are.

Unfortunately it is far more than a "goddamn partisan war cry" to me as well, but I don't feel the need to tell you to FO for suggesting that's all it is to me.

For the record, I'm not COMPARING WWII with the war in Iraq; I'm amazed that you've missed the point by that much. My question was simply why are the images of previous wars acceptable for use by the media EXCEPT the images of 9/11? And then it evolved into why was it acceptable to keep peoples emotions high during WWII and yet the media appears deadset against stirring similar emotions about the war on terror? If you misinterpreted those questions as a comparison between the WARS themselves and what prompted our involvement, I'm afraid you're a bit off.

BTW, my points are in regard to the overall war on terrorists NOT specifically the war in Iraq. In that regard, if Bush TRULY believed that Saddam possessed WMD's, I wholeheartedly support his decision to attack what he believed to be a potential terrorist threat. However, if Bush knew there were no WMD's and invaded anyway, then I would absolutely agree that he violated the trust of Americans to an extent unequalled in our history and should be impeached. We've had that debate a number of times, and I don't think either side has convinced the other of Bush's true knowledge & intentions regarding the WMD situation in Iraq; only W and a few of his closest allies know the real truth as to whether it was a deception or a mistake, and they have to live with it either way.

Be that as it may, the ultimate goal here is to inflict enough damage on the terrorist groups that they decide it's not worth attacking America again. Since we agree we are in a war, the goal should be to win it as quickly as possible so as to minimize our own civilian & military casualties. Anything that furthers that goal is worthwhile, IMO, including occasional visual reminders from the media to help sustain our determination to see this war through to victory. I'm not saying it has to be excessive; we don't want or need to "overload" on it, but it is obvious that the media has chosen the polar opposite by essentially placing a gag order on the images of that day.

I'm really hopeful that they aren't doing it solely to reduce pro-war (and in their view, pro-Bush) sentiments but it certainly looks as if that may be a big reason for it.