Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!

Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
kimvia Offline
is asleep
Experienced TeenHelper
kimvia's Avatar
Name: Kim
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Houston, Texas

Posts: 581
Join Date: March 5th 2009

Question 9-11 not a treat to national security? - March 17th 2009, 05:33 PM

so, my political science professor said that 9-11 was not a threat to national security. He defines national security as:

A-National Security Definition- What is needed to protect us and the resources we need from abroad to maintain our lifestyle.
1- It's NOT an abstract concept- it grows out of concrete circumstances.
2- In the most general terms, national security may be defined as the ABSENCE of a real or apparent threat to a people's fundamental values which are political, ideological, economic, cultural and civilizational.
i. Why mention apparent threat- we consider a treat what we FEEL is a threat. Because if something happens, later they will be more nervous and will be careful.
ii. Fundamental values
1) Political- territory of the US, physical aspect of the country, survival of the people.
2) Economic- trusting economic stuff so you feel secure and buy buy buy
3) Ideological- political system, how it works, ideas that mould it.
4) Cultural- if you can control what people hear and read, you can control them.
5) Civilizational- having your own culture- tv radio magazines etc.
I don't understand how that can be true according to this definition. What do YOU think?

PM me any time, ok? I'm always here to help.

What's the second amendment for?
Just in case the government takes away the first.
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
primus diddy Offline
Average Joe
primus diddy's Avatar
Name: Mike
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Location: Maine

Posts: 141
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: 9-11 not a treat to national security? - March 17th 2009, 05:48 PM

I can't make any sense out of that definition. By that criteria 9/11 was most certainly a national security threat. Try to explain his logic more thoroughly.

Searching my heart for its true sorrow,
This is the thing I find it to be:
That I am weary of words and people,
Sick of the city, wanting the sea;

Wanting the sticky, salty sweetness
Of the strong wind and shattered spray;
Wanting the loud sound and the soft sound
Of the big surf that breaks all day.

-Exiled, Edna St. Vincent Millay
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
noise94 Offline
I can't get enough
noise94's Avatar
Gender: N/A

Posts: 3,231
Join Date: January 11th 2009

Re: 9-11 not a treat to national security? - March 17th 2009, 06:34 PM

:confused: I don't really understand how it couldn't have been.
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
BrittneyNicole Offline
live with intention.
I can't get enough
BrittneyNicole's Avatar
Name: Brittney
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Location: Maryland

Posts: 2,040
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: 9-11 not a treat to national security? - March 17th 2009, 07:14 PM

I don't get how he could not see 9/11 as a national security threat? Doesn't everyone?

"You've just been B-Wildered." -Brian Wilson <3
Trumpet love; Tenderlips.

"Where there is love there is life."- Mahatma Gandhi

"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." - Jeremiah 29:11

  Send a message via MSN to BrittneyNicole  
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
Hdjdjdjduvieg Offline
Wandering Wayfarer
I've been here a while
Hdjdjdjduvieg's Avatar
Name: no

Posts: 1,126
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: 9-11 not a treat to national security? - March 17th 2009, 07:18 PM

I couldn't really interpret his definition... but 9/11 was definitely a threat to national security.. our nation wasn't secure when we were bombed...

I love the name of honour more than I fear death.
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
Kryptonite Offline
Experienced TeenHelper
Kryptonite's Avatar
Name: Alex
Gender: Male

Posts: 541
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: 9-11 not a treat to national security? - March 17th 2009, 07:20 PM

A professor may have a nice little rough outline, but that won't outline every situation, and it never will. 9/11 was certainly a threat to national security.

[Click to PM me.]

"If I go crazy then will you still
call me Superman
If Iím alive and well, will you be
There holding my hand
Iíll keep you by my side
With my superhuman might...


  (#7 (permalink)) Old
Mithridates Offline
Welcome me, I'm new!
Mithridates's Avatar

Posts: 34
Join Date: March 18th 2009

Re: 9-11 not a treat to national security? - March 18th 2009, 10:58 PM

How many people die yearly of terrorism. Then compare how many die of cancer or heart disease.

Then look at how much we put into preventing both.

  (#8 (permalink)) Old
TakeTheLeap Offline
I've been here a while
TakeTheLeap's Avatar
Name: Emily
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Virginia

Posts: 1,309
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: 9-11 not a treat to national security? - March 21st 2009, 06:05 PM

Wow, that guy sounds like my old Political Science professor. He's right, everyone else is wrong. Period. End of sentence.

I definitely don't understand how 9/11, which shook up the entire country, couldn't be considered a threat to national security.

ďDon't get too comfortable with who you are at any given time. You may miss the opportunity to become who you want to be." ~Jon Bon Jovi

  (#9 (permalink)) Old
sushi_error Offline
Regular TeenHelper
sushi_error's Avatar
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Location: US

Posts: 443
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: 9-11 not a treat to national security? - March 22nd 2009, 01:45 AM

No one can deny that 9/11 was NOT a threat to American security or the security of the rest of the international community.

You had a non-state, transnational actor attacking another country, going against any United Nations protocol (yes, I know that non-state organizations are not a part of the UN, but you get the point).

In my opinion, your political science professor has only contradicted himself on various levels based on his own definition of the word 'national security'. You need to have him elaborate more, especially on the 'fundamental values' part.

Check out my blog: White-Out Blots

How did Mandela get the will to surpass the everyday,
When injustice had him caged and trapped in every way,
How did Ghandi ever withstand the hunger strikes and all,
Didn't do it to gain power or money if I recall,
It's to give; I guess I'll pass it on

- Take a Minute, K'naan
Closed Thread


911, national, security, treat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All material copyright ©1998-2020, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints | Mobile

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.