The danger is less that a state will sponsor a terror group and more that a terror group will sponsor a state—as happened in Afghanistan Zakaria: Stepping away from the partisan screaming going on these days, the 9/11 commission hearings and—far more revealing—the panel's staff reports paint a fascinating picture of the rise of a new phenomenon in global politics: terrorism that is not state-sponsored but society-sponsored. Few in the American government fully grasped that a group of people without a state's support could pose a mortal threat. The mistake looks obvious in hindsight, but was, sadly, understandable at the time of 9/11. What is less understandable is that this same error persists even today.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly on Mar 28, 2004 - 46 comments

“There has been a cover-up of this.” Ah, well, why should we be surprised. The Republicans already have decided to co-opt September 11 to their political advantage by rescheduling their convention in New York so close to the anniversary of that day, so why not keep the report on the actual events of September 11 secret - to avoid any sort of embarassing political fallout?
posted by kgasmart on May 1, 2003 - 35 comments

From Richard Wilbur: "Dear Bill, The only thing I can say right now is this. There is no excuse for the cold inhumanity of 11 September, and there is no excuse for those Americans, whether of the left or the religious right, who say that we had it coming to us. Dick"
posted by semmi on Sep 9, 2002 - 23 comments

National Defense Panel predicted WTC-style attack in 1997. Also contains link to report. Haven't read it yet (it's pretty long), so I don't know what it suggests. But apparently the Administration is paying attention now. "Unanticipated asymmetries," indeed.
posted by aflakete on Sep 21, 2001 - 3 comments

"How Bush should spend his windfall of political capital." Many links have been posted in the past 10 days to cheap political opportunism in the wake of 0.81- but this takes the cake: an op-ed calling for Bush to explicitly exploit this tragedy to pass bigger tax cuts, ANWR drilling, etc. Yep, another sickening WSJ effort; I'm sure the families of the victims will take heart in knowing their loved ones are, in fact, a "windfall of political capital" for Bush. (sorry for the two-front-page-posts-in-a-row, btw)
posted by hincandenza on Sep 21, 2001 - 13 comments

Are we blaming the victim? William Saleten argues that talk about what the USA has done to provoke terrorist attack is like a battered wife wondering what she's done to deserve a beating. It risks legitimizing these indefensible acts, and gives us a false sense of control: i.e. that we could prevent such attacks if we'd only behave.
posted by straight on Sep 20, 2001 - 102 comments

The problem with retaliation. "Don't get me wrong. If Bin Laden is indeed behind this, then he should be either killed or put on trial....still, how we go about bringing Bin Laden to justice (assuming, again, that this is his work) will massively influence how safe Americans are in the decades to come." The sanest analysis I've seen so far.
posted by lbergstr on Sep 12, 2001 - 49 comments