In some ways this comment is spot on, but in many others it's not. England, Australia, France and Germany all had unprecedented terror attacks in the years since 9-11. All of those have put in place much increased physical, telecommunications and financial surveillance, except maybe France (I don't know about France). Perhaps not post-9-11 world outside the U.S., but definitely a world in terror from the governments' point of view. From an average citizen POV, it's probably more like 'Didn't something happen a few years ago at an Ariana Grande concert?'.
> ..., Germany all had unprecedented terror attacks in the years since 9-11.
Germany hasn't - we've had much worse terror attacks in the years before 9-11. I'll just mention the Oktoberfest attack or the attack on the munich olympic games. In terms of collective scare, the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion) far eclipses any terror risk after 9-11. Even today, more people get killed by Nazi supporters than other terrorists.
We still have put a lot of restrictive measures in place, but it's more that 9-11 and terrorism act as a convenient leverage to impose those measures and not the actual danger.
By that reasoning you might say the US had a huge role in 9/11 because the Bin Laden issue station failed to identify and prevent his attacks. I wouldn't say that, they did the best they could with the budget they had, and the approvals they were (or weren't) given.
