My first note this morning was that Google, although eager to mark a wide range of obscure events with a special "logo", had nothing of the sort to commemorate 9/11, similar to the absence of any note for Memorial Day.

"had nothing of the sort to commemorate 9/11, similar to the absence of any note for Memorial Day. "

Those who benefit the most from America are those least likely to comprehend the value of the nation that enabled their wealth.

I would also point out that virtually no left-wing blog will show an iota of anger towards Al-Qaeda, even on this day. Show me one prominent left-wing blog that blasts Al-Qaeda, in any form other than qualifying it by "Bush let Bin Laden get away, and instead invaded Iraq..."

I remember, every year.

Thank you for remembering.

William sends

Thanks in return, William. I think it's good for us to remember this colossal and awful event together.

This happened to us, our friends, our mates, including people I emailed in America that day to see if they were all right. (They were: one had been in the wrong place, but was out of there luckily at the right time.) I don't have a lot in common with people who don't feel part of the us that this blow was struck at.

One thing I remember every year that I think is different from how Americans remember this is that Prime Minister John Howard (of Australia, my country) was in America, and on 10 September, 2001 he was celebrating the 50th anniversary of ANZUS, which is Australia's defense treaty with America. And a part of that was saying, in politician talk: you can count on us, mates.

In one way, that 10 September, 2001 was deeply serious: as a nation, we had not let our primary alliance slip from our minds. We were consolidating what mattered. In another way what the Prime Minister said on 10 September, 2001 was almost annoyingly un-serious. It was obvious that our side of the commitment was empty, because obviously America was the sole superpower, and it was never going to be attacked. ANZUS was like Jimmy Olson having a mutual defense treaty with Superman: on one side the commitment "I'll come to your aid if you need it" was meaningful, on the other side it was meaningless.

One day later, everything was changed, I didn't know if all my friends in America were still alive or if one or more of them was dead (as I said, I was totally lucky), and we had no idea where this war was going to go. We only knew what we had promised, literally just yesterday, and in what spirit we had sworn to react if our mates needed it.

I don't want to make this too political, but this is one of the reasons I'm cautious about the idea of NATO expanding. (There are other reasons too.) You should think hard about speaking words of commitment before you speak. Once you have, you don't even know what will happen the next day. It may happen that words that once sounded frustratingly like empty sentiments are an all-important test of your nation's honor.

9/11 was a huge own-goal for Islamic supremacists. Not only did it bring down the wrath of the U.S. military upon their heads, but it also cast a harsh spotlight on their ideology itself, and on the kind of world they intend to bring about. Warnings about their growing influence in the West, particularly Europe, would be a whole lot easier to dismiss out of hand as so much right-wing paranoia if bin Laden and company hadn't tipped their hand in such spectacular fashion on that day.

Indeed, my theory is that this is the main reason why we haven't seen anything resembling a sequel to that attack since then - not just because it's become a lot harder to pull off, but because Islamic supremacists belatedly realized how counterproductive 9/11 itself turned out to be.

Islamic supremacists belatedly realized how counterproductive 9/11 itself turned out to be.

The 9/11 attacks were actually very damaging for the US. In the atmosphere of fear that the attacks successfully created, the US invaded and occupied both Afghanistan and Iraq. Both these occupations were strategic blunders which have been extremely costly and unproductive for the USA.

For a small extremist group which was on the edge of extinction before 2000, that's a big step forward.

"Both these occupations were strategic blunders which have been extremely costly and unproductive for the USA. "

What evidence is there of this (other than left-wing dogma)?

The facts are :

1) Terrorists tried to kill 50,000 Americans on 9/11/01, and managed to kill 3000 of them.
2) The terrorists did, however, manage to damage the US economy.
3) In response, the US topples the two worst regimes in the Islamic world, bringing nascent democracies to both, and freeing 50 million people into a situation, however imperfect, that is relatively better than was before.
4) No attacks on US soil in 7 years, despite attacks in Madrid, London, Bali, Beslan, Bombay, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Morocco during this time. However, even these have dried up by around 2007.

All in all, the US won pretty handily.

GK in #8

"Both these occupations were strategic blunders which have been extremely costly and unproductive for the USA. " What evidence is there of this (other than left-wing dogma)?

It seems to me that the evidence is straightforward if you consider actual costs, and what the "democratization" actually looks like in Iraq and Afghanistan. The wars and occupations started under the rubric "Global War on Terror", Afghanistan, Iraq, and the proxy war of Israel against Lebannon have:

-cost the US about 500 Billion dollars that the government admits. In reality, the cost is probably more like 1 Trillion... so far.
-killed about 1 million Iraqis, about 20,000 Afghanistan civilians, and about 1,200 Lebanese.
-Displaced approximately 5 million Iraqis, either as 'internal refugees' or into Jordan & Syria.
-Killed about 4100 US soldiers, and wounded about 30,000 (the official count).
-Given thousands of US soldiers PTSD, which they probably will not be treated for.
-Destroyed infrastructure in Iraq and Lebannon which hasn't been re-built to this date.
-Spread radioactive depleted Uranium all ofer Iraq.
-Damaged US image globally.
-Caused the Israeli military to lose a war against a weak opponent.

All this for a potemkin state in Afghanistan, and a Government in Iraq which will likely be destroyed if the US leaves, and replaced with something else. Pretty pathetic, in my opinion.