Must be the full moon.
Scylla, I think you flat out misread this, you think Krugman is disrespecting the tragedy, cheapening it. He isn’t, what he’s pissed about is the exploitation of a cherished thing to evil ends.
When something I cherish and respect is exploited for good purposes, it still kinda squicks me out, I don’t much like it. Far worse when such a thing is exploited for bad purposes. Its kind of like having to explain that of course you respect the troops, that respect is the reason you don’t want them sent to fight a dishonorable war. Bad enough to have to kill for a good cause.
His respect for that memory may well be the equal to your own, I wouldn’t hazard a guess. But by no stretch is he denying any such respect.
You missed it.
Cherished?
Yeah, the victims and the heroes are cherished. We’re talking about funerals, remember?
What we should be mourning on 9/11 is the way we as a country betrayed those who died by using their deaths as a excuse to become our own worst enemy.
Yeah, well I’ll leave you on dio’s side arguing the innocence of Iraq under saddam Hussein.
I’m just still somsurprised how this website has become a haven for this kind of nutty fringe thinking.
Sorry, what does this have to do with your petty bitching about Krugman and 9/11?
I don’t know. You and some other asshole are the ones that brought up this whole innocent iraqi meme, not me
If killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis is justified by the crimes of Saddam Hussein, then the 9/11 terrorists were also justified in killing thousands of innocent Americans for our governmnt’s and our corporations’ crimes in the Middle East.Band considering that our own government was an accessory to a large proportion of Saddam’s atrocity’s, the invasion of Iraq should logically have included fire-bombing Houston into dust.
But Krugman does own what he says and makes that clear in a follow up column he wrote:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/more-about-the-911-anniversary/
Like most posters here, I’m not seeing a reason to get pissed off. To me this contrived controversy is really just another excuse for the right to express faux-outrage.
Frankly I’m much more offended by the congress critters who praised the first responders to the rafters, but then refused to pass the Zagroda Act (at least until Jon Stewart shamed them into it).
That wasn’t the definition of “innocent” being used and you know it. Why do I know you know it? Because there’s not a single country in the world that’s innocent of any wrong doing under those standards (some are of course less odious than others). Iraq was innocent of any connection to the 9/11 attacks, which is the standard being used, and you’re just attempting a very transparent dodge to draw attention away from the fact that you know your argument is weak.
Behaving monstrously against someone who could arguably be said to deserve something monstrous happening to them just on general principle is not qualitatively different to behaving monstrously against an innocent.
In both cases, the actor has behaved monstrously. I, for one, am opposed to my country behaving monstrously.
As a general rule.
Your chimpanzee, Bush, exploited 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq and kill innocent people. True or false?
Well, guideline.
Bush is not my chimpanzee, but this is a bit fucking ridiculous. Did Bush exploit 9/11? Yes. Did he do it to invade Iraq? Yes. Did he do it to kill innocent people? No. He’s an asshole, not a supervillain. I really doubt he said, hey lets go kill some Iraqis. He did kill Iraqis, true, but it was not his express purpose.
What, exactly, is overly simplistic about:
Enlighten me.
I’m sure that distinction has meaning to the families of dead Iraqi civilains.
No, he just didn’t give a good goddamn whether our invasion resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. It wasn’t particularly important to him to have a plan to keep Iraq from falling apart after our invasion and removal of Saddam succeeded.
There comes a point where there really isn’t much moral difference between being a supervillain and being an ignorant but extremely powerful asshole.
I’m sure it doesn’t. But it should have distinction to us, the distinction between an incompetent killing somebody through negligence, and somebody, with malice and forethought, killing somebody. It doesn’t really make a difference to the families of the people killed, but one is certainly seen as far more inexcusable and heinous than the other. Both are criminal, but to a different degree.