9/11 and its legacy

E

veryone (above a certain age) can remem-

ber where they were when September 11

happened. There was saturation media

coverage, and it was clearly the worst terrorist

outrage anyone could recall since the Second

World War. There was a sense of total unreality

as a second plane collided with the tower of the

World Trade Center not long after the first plane

had struck. Thousands of people were already

at their desks in both towers, while some 80

chefs, waiters and kitchen porters were working

in a restaurant on the 106th floor. Many who

worked for firms located in the crash zone were

killed instantly. Those on the floors above the

collisions were already doomed, their escape

routes cut off by fire. And then the news came

about the Pentagon. Overall, the estimated death

tolls reached 3,030 with 2,337 injuries. Al-

Qaeda was blamed for the atrocities, and there

was a sense at the time that this was an event

that was truly historic. Everything that has

happened since then – the wars in Afghanistan

and Iraq, the passing of anti-terrorist legislation,

the establishment of the internment camp at

Guantanamo Bay – has confirmed that this was

an event with enormous repercussions. It has

brought the question of political violence into

everyone’s consciousness.

Politicians and ordinary people alike con-

demned the atrocity. But why did it happen?

• Is the very attempt to understand the events
  of 9/11 an act of thoughtless condonation, or
  is understanding crucial to an effective way
  of responding to the action?
  The act was denounced as ‘evil’.


• Is this a useful category for characterising
  such outrages, or is the notion of evil unable
  to get to grips with the reasons why such an
  event happened?
  What did the action achieve? Clearly it
  obtained massive publicity:


• But did it make it easier or more difficult to
  implement policies that would tackle the
  causes of the problem?


• What was in the minds of those who planned
  the event? Were they hoping for an intem-
  perate response that would recruit supporters
  for their cause, or did they believe that this
  kind of action would bring about the kind of
  reforms that would address the problem of
  Palestine/Israel, global inequality, American
  hegemony, etc.?


• Is there a danger that by fully reporting
  such incidents ‘the oxygen of publicity’ (as
  Margaret Thatcher used to say) is given to the
  practitioners of political violence?

© Paul J. Sutton/PCN/Corbis