Introduction
The events known as 9/11 occurred 16 years ago, but the Americans still remember the time when so many people lost their lives and homes (Chossudovsky, 2016). Each interview with a person about the outcomes of the reasons for those terrorist attacks turns out to be a challenge because people have to experience those emotions again and think about the transience of life. However, even being so emotionally challenged by the events with a history of more than 15 years, people demonstrate different attitudes to those events, and the concept of “war on terrorism” developed as the main response of the US government. Unfortunately, it is impossible just to stop this kind of war, even if the best practices are taken (Rieff, 2016). Greenslade (2015) admits that new attempts generate more terrorism in different countries. The U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks and the development of new religious practices demonstrate the level of the population’s vulnerability and the inability to predict or even understand the nature of the war on terrorism that has already covered the whole world in several years.
Same Questions and Different Aspects
The interviews with friends help to clarify several important aspects of the topic “war on terror” and the necessity of the government to take the steps and respond to the attacks. First, there is always a political aspect within the frames of which people have nothing to do but to accept the decisions made by their government. Political concerns and the inabilities consider the needs of all people to promote the development of fears and anger. It is the main ground for the discussions within another aspect that includes personal attitudes and opinions. People understand that the government cannot neglect their duties and organize numerous rescue and recovery operations in order to save people and avoid new destructions. The war on terrorism gained numerous forms such as secret prisons and additional invasions on the Muslim land, and many people could even not know about them. However, it is hard to guess if the decisions made by the government differ from those made by other people to protect their truth. “The number and lethality of terrorist attacks are far likelier to rise than to diminish for the foreseeable future” (Rieff, 2016, para. 8). This truth cannot be neglected.
Subjects in Different Questions
In the interviews, there were several similar questions in order to help people clarify if they differentiate more and less effective aspects of the U.S. response to the attacks. Besides, certain attention was paid to the question of safety. One of the respondents said that safety was something people could never reach with the help of the government. The point is that “the threat is already inside”, but “nobody wants to hear” (Greenslade, 2015, para. 1).
The questions, as well as the answers in the interviews, aim at discussing political, personal, religious, and social subjects in regard to the terrorist attacks that began in 2001. Though it was not the first threat to the American population, it was the first time when it was observed globally because of the number of innocent deaths and damage. It was mentioned correctly that the USA is a melting pot, and the idea to cooperate with different cultures and religions should help the country to enrich its cultural and social lives. However, could it happen that the USA had already made such attempts before and observed no positive results? What makes people think that everything could be changed this time? It seems that the development of the interview and the answers to the questions create new questions and doubts about the conditions under which an ordinary US citizen has to live and deal with the possibility of a terrorist attack threat.
Impact on People
It is hard to say that some answers changed my mind and attitudes to the conditions under which the US population has to live after the 9/11 attacks. First, it is wrong to believe that the government could protect its people from any kind of threat. Therefore, people understand how fragile their lives actually are. Then, the development of the “war on terrorism” is evidence that cannot be neglected due to the necessity to protect people by any possible means (Greenslade, 2015). Finally, anti-terrorist legislation and improvements have been discussed a lot (Chossudovsky, 2016). People are aware of what they could expect and what rules they have to follow. They cannot forget about religious disparities and the conflicts of interests.
Conclusion
The feelings and knowledge developed during the interviews impact my understanding of the topic and the decisions that have to be made regularly. It is wrong to say that I was not ready for such answers. Still, these answers helped me to comprehend that there are so many people outside, who continue worrying about various external threats and take their day-to-day actions regarding the possibility of a new attack promoted by a disconcerted person, whose religious or ethical ideas are not supported by the rest of the population.
References
Chossudovsky, M. (2016). 9/11 and America’s “war on terrorism”.Global Research. Web.
Greenslade, R. (2015). Why a ‘war’ on terrorism will generate yet more terrorism.The Guardian. Web.
Rieff, D. (2016). The long war on terror.The New York Times. Web.