Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I don't disagree with parts of this, but remember that there was (and still is) a large amount of "us versus them" involved in 9/11 - OKC wasn't done by "outsiders" while 9/11 was. OKC isn't viewed as an attack on our government (even though it was, both literally and figuratively), while 9/11 often is.
While "racism" isn't exactly the right word, there's no doubt that part of the reason why 9/11 carries so much weight (and the dreaded "TERRORISM" label, while OKC doesn't to the same extent at all) is because it was performed by Muslims. While correlation doesn't equal causation, of course, it's clear that there is prejudice involved.
The "changes" caused by 9/11 were knee-jerk and likely cosmetic - and often for the negative when not cosmetic. I mean, airline travel changes are pretty fine, but the Patriot Act? Really? Those kinds of changes aren't persuasive for me.
|
While you do have some good points I'm still going to have to disagree with you. I think that if we had two similar incidents to compare ( similar in methods, damage, deaths) with one being committed by a foreign muslim, the other being committed by a white christian citizen and the muslim ends up being "feared" more than I'd agree with you. DS made some good examples of when suspected Muslims go nuts, our knee-jerk reaction is terrorist. When non-muslims go nuts, well they are just considered nuts.
I believe that if 9/11 was carried out by domestic white christian terrorists we would have still seen the creation of DHS and the passing of the Patriot Act. No war in Afghanistan of course.
Threaded Mode
