I’ve already got the picture, Beeblebrox; please quit trying to change it. Pico Iyer wasn’t talking about Oklahoma City or Timothy McVeigh. Had he been writing about those subjects on the one year anniversary, though, would you be accusing him of blaming the victim if he pointed out that many Americans are genuinely angry over Waco and Ruby Ridge, and that one of the steps we should productively take (besides prosecuting McVeigh) would be to reassess some of our domestic policies? If so, then there are plenty of “victim blamers” living in America right now.
XENO –
It’s a perfectly valid analogy. Rape is violative and assaultive and perpetrated on the unsuspecting. It is a type of assault, and a particularly wrenching one. Since “assault” itself can be anything from being poked in the eye to having the shit beat out of you, “rape” as an analogy carries connotations of unsuspecting violation that “assault” does not. It is not “insulting” nor “inapt,” and I for one will continue to employ it because it’s a hell of a lot more accurate than comparing it to having a brick thrown at us.
Aw, bullshit. By this rationale, it is the victim who decides whether she is “humiliated” or “controlled” – i.e., your trite little statement “I refuse to be a victim!” In fact, a woman who is raped is a victim. She has been humiliated and controlled during the rape. Her self-conscious, strong, and admirable determination to refuse to remain a victim afterward does not change that. Just because we can choose not to embrace victimization does not mean we were never victimized. And I’m amazed that you would think the hijackers were not “expressing their rage” through “humiliation and control.” Seems to be pretty clear that is exactly what they were doing.
So what? So the assault is justified? So . . . what? Help me out here. Why is that in any way relevant? At all?
We did not “have a brick chucked at us.” Three thousand people died. It took two and a half hours to read those names yesterday. You can minimize it as much as you want in your pathetic attempt to make this “we deserved it” rhetoric okay, but the truth is that we didn’t deserve it. No one does, or ever could. And the size of our nation doesn’t change that. We are not “slapping people on the street.” And we are not “whining” about our losses.
“Blubbering”? Blubbering? Do you know how stupid that sounds? How stupid you sound? Once again: We are the victim here. People like you who want to minimize that, or make it less than it is, do a disservice to every person who died a year ago. We should receive respect based upon our actions and our resolve to do what’s right. Or not, depending on your POV. But our clear entitlement to the word “victim” in this context has nothing to do with that. We were victims – every last one of us. Except, apparently, you. And I don’t think there’s a single nation on this earth that thinks America’s reaction to this tragedy has been “blubbering.” For better or for worse, we have taken decisive action in the wake of 9/11 and, for better or for worse, I imagine we will continue to do so.
As an American, I refuse to act like we were not, every one of us (except you), victims of the largest terrorist attack ever perpetrated. That has nothing to do with any right to be pissed off at us, which is a different issue.
I love how you give the terrorists a pass you’re rightly unwilling to give your own nation. The disconnect is so amazing. Is there some reason you think the 9/11 terrorists were incompetent? Do you imagine they did not think their actions were moral? Do you think they believed they were being irresposible? I doubt it. We are responsible for our own actions. BUT SO ARE THEY. And you do this country a great wrong when you minimize both our hurt and their culpability. You don’t have to do that in order to focus on America’s perceived errors anyway, so why do it at all?
I agree with COLDFIRE. Regardless of the legitimacy of his points, the timing of the column was execrable.
I’m not trying to change jack shit, xeno. Mr Iyer wasn’t talking about Oklahoma City, but he was talking about a terrorist act. Yes, I would still be acussing him of blaming the victim if he was talking about Oklahoma City and implying that if we just treated gun-stockpiling cults and neo-revolutionaries a little bit nicer we could prevent similar tragedies in the future. By extension he would be implying that the death of the civilian employees in the federal building was to be expected because the ATF was heavy handed in Texas.
We should constantly reevaluate our policies, but Mr. Iyers is saying much more than that. He is equating foreign policy missteps with the murder of 3 thousand plus civilians in New York. He said “toward how we can avoid hurting others, and getting hurt, again.” Mr. Iyers is drawing a direct line of correlation and saying that if we don’t make those mistakes again, we won’t have another attack. He is implying that 9-11 was the direct result of our mistakes (blaming the victim), and for this he is an asshole.
I still don’t think you’re getting it, Xeno.
Oh? Please explain the symbology to me then, because I can’t see it (I’m “stupid”, remember?). What part of the attack corresponds to the penetration of America by al Qaeda’s collective penis? What aspect about the coordinated hijackings indicates how much stronger and more forceful al Qaeda was on that day than the United States? At least in the “brick” analogy, I can show you exactly where we were struck and where the bricks were thrown from.
Bullshit right back at you. Ever counselled or comforted a recovering rape victim? I have. She refused to behave as a victim afterward, too. Go and tell her how trite her decision was; I’m sure she’ll find your lecture instructive.
So the victim in this case can also take care of himself pretty well. By the way, notice I said “VICTIM”. Indicates I understand a crime was perpetrated against America, right? A whole freakin’ YEAR AGO, Jodi, you acknowledged (after much self righteous talk about how a less astute person might not get it) that I wasn’t justifying the attacks.
I remember. Kinda makes the “rape” analogy look PRETTY FUCKING STUPID too, doesn’t it? No one was “raped.” Those three thousand people were murdered during a coordinated attack on America.
But apparently we’re claiming and using “rape victim” status to ignore any criticisms. Yes, that’s much more mature than refusing to act like a victim.
So it’s not good enough that we call the perpetrators monsters, that we condemn their actions and grieve for the murdered thousands; unless we wallow in our victimhood, we’re “minimizing” the atrocity? Climb off your highhorse.
A. You haven’t been paying attention then.
B. It’s not “America” that’s blubbering. It’s a whole lot of individual Americans, like you, who are doing so.
Be careful! You don’t want to acknowledge that there might be a “worse” aspect to our decisive action, or you’ll be blaming the victim!
The atrocious nature of the attacks is certainly a different issue from anger at America. Our response to the atrocity, however, cannot be disconnected from that anger.
The 9/11 terrorists, and the whole al Qaeda network, were not competent to affect large scale international operations, which is what American foreign policy (you remember that, right? -it’s what the article derided in the OP was discussing) addresses. Stop letting your indignation make you thick headed.
Gasp! You moral relativist! Good thing you’re so firmly established as a victim, or a less astute person than I might think you’re making excuses for the terrorists.
Nope, you’re not getting it at all.
You’re very welcome. She is opinionated. On this particular issue,* I don’t think that she is any more off base than Pico is.
The only way the U.S. can appease the most radical elements of Islam is to destroy itself. Pluralism, religious freedom, elections, secular courts - basically everything our country is based on - are antithetical to everything they believe in.
Hate crime is not a unidirectional concept.
Look at the part of the Coulter article I quoted (after the Coulteresque rant). Islam, you have a problem. Seriously. CBS (and 60 Minutes particularly) is not exactly Pat Robertson’s network.
*Sometimes she’s crazy. I think she may be starving.
I’d just like to take this moment to highlight one of the reasons why Ann Coulter is someday going to be my sexual plaything:
Ann, you’re so wrong that you are destined to be my French maid in the candent depths of Hell. But I’d like to screw a little bit of sense into you sooner than that.
Thank you so much, ** Xeno, ** you have the patience of a Zen master. I sit at your feet and hope to absorb even a tiny bit of your wisdom. Because every time I read or hear ANOTHER person equte any self-examination with saying we deserved it, I just want to scream at the top of my lungs and maybe even bitch slap a few people.
XENO –
“Brick”? What “brick”? They didn’t use any bricks. Reserving my right to act like a literalist moron such as yourself, please explain to me when bricks were used and who threw them.
As a matter of fact I have, not that it’s any of your business. And heaven save whatever rape victim you might run into from the sweet comfort of your “counsel.” Your statement was trite, and remains trite: As I already said, refusing to continue to be victimized does not mean one cannot acknowledge that one has, in fact, been a victim. And grieve accordingly.
Ah, yes, a “whole freakin’ YEAR AGO.” And that’s so important because it doesn’t mean as much now, right? How could we “take care of ourselves pretty well” when they use our planes, loaded with innocent people, as bombs to blow up our buildings, loaded with thousands of more innocent victims? You say now that you understand a crime was perpetrated agains America, but your last post sure as hell doesn’t sound like it. Nor does the “get over it” that is implicit in “a whole freakin’ YEAR AGO.”
Wait, wait – would the analogy be more or less stupid that having a brick thrown at one? At this point, I’m unable to see what your position is regarding the whole issue of analogies.
Scroll back through my post and find where I said that we had the “status” of a rape victim. Wait – first look up “status” and “analogy” in the dictionary and see if you can grasp the diffference. Then go back through my post and find where I said the U.S. could or should “ignore any criticism.” It’s a lot easier to take issue with what I didn’t say then what I did, isn’t it?
Blah blah blah. See above re: attempting to respond to what I actually said instead of tilting at the straw man of what I pretty clearly did not say.
I said: "And I don’t think there’s a single nation on this earth that thinks America’s reaction to this tragedy has been “blubbering.”
To which you reply:
A. I don’t think you’re much of a judge of whether I’ve been paying attention or not, but then, I don’t think you’re much of a judge of anything.
B. Let’s see some examples of this “blubbering.” “A whole lot of individual Americans” have been doing it, huh? When? Where? Cites, man, cites. Specifically, I’d like some citation to when I, personally, have ever “blubbered” about it. When you cannot find any – and you cannot – I invite you to fuck right off. The gall of you, on the day after this anniversary, to tell me I have “blubbered” over this, as if my grief or that event is something trivial. You are truly an asshole of the highest order. I would have lost all possible respect for you for such a comment, but fortunately, having prior experience with just how far up your ass you keep your head, I don’t have any left to lose.
Thank you, STOID, for nicely illustrating both the tendency of like-minded idiots to flock together, and your own personal and perpetual willingness to be a lavish, if unsubtle, ass-kisser.
You “sit at his feet and hope to absorb the tiniest bit of his wisdom?” C’mon. Be honest: Didn’t it trigger your gag reflex to even type that? It should have.
Sigh, nobody seems to be getting it. Xeno ain’t wise.
situation: Rape
Iyer’s response: look beyond your wounds and toward how you can avoid tempting others, and getting hurt, again. Don’t wear a skirt next time.
situation: assault
Iyer’s response: look beyond your wounds and toward how you can avoid angering others, and getting hurt, again. Don’t talk back next time.
situation: mugging
Iyer’s response: look beyond your wounds and toward how you can avoid attracting the attention of thieves, and getting hurt, again. Don’t walk through that neighborhood next time.
situation: Grand theft auto
Iyer’s response: look beyond your loss and toward how you can avoid attracting the attention of thieves, and getting hurt, again. Drive a shitty car.
This is NOT a “don’t criticize the war effort thing”. This is taking a columnist to task for idiotic comments. Stoid, it is entirely possible to use self-examination without blaming the victim. Mr. Iyer, however, did not do so. He equated foreign policy missteps with a terrorist attack and implied that we had it coming because of our previous actions.
I critically examine the country all the time. I’m against the war on Iraq, think Ashcroft is one step away from being the Antichrist, and believe that Bush is in way over his head. However, I do NOT demean the deaths of those that died a year ago by telling the families that lost loved ones and the entire wounded nation to be “humble” and if that they are just humble enough it may not happen next time. They have a right to be outraged.
We wuz attacked by crazy Muslims. Simple’s thet. Ain’t nuthin’ we kin do but tries to kilz 'em, 'afore themz kilz us.
In the alternative: we could convert to Islam, cover women with burkas and hajibs, implement Shari’a law, blow Israel off the face of the Earth, and kiss Usama’s ass.
An intermediate plan: pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, adopt a more neutral posture vis-a-vis Israel, push for democratic reforms in the Islamic nations (could backfire, but, hell, nothing works anyway), and try to counter the crazy Islamic propaganda that passes for news over there: Jews eat babies, blew up the WTC, yadda.
Will any of the plans work? I doubt it. Maybe if we kill enough radicals as per plan #1 the others will hide more often.
The word “pretext” keeps floating through my head. As in, “What a convenient pretext, using the whole Israeli - Palestinian crisis as an alleged justification for the 9/11/01 attacks on the U.S.”
No fair picking on Pico Iyer. It must be galling for someone of Indian heritage for his country to have had to depend on U.S. intervention to avoid getting nuked in a stupid war with Pakistan. His finger-wagging becomes a bit more understandable in that light.*
And I just want to say that I love Jodi’s posts. They’re all great, with the exception of rare ones like her answer to my post on holiday traffic enforcement, which was bullshit. But that aside, she is my logic goddess, and I worship at her briefcase.
*One online review of his writings mentioned that as a travel writer he had visited places most of the rest of us can only dream of going to - such as Cuba, Vietnam and Ethiopia.
Yep, they’re all on my dream list - with a change of planes in Lagos, Nigeria.
And nobody told them that, ** Beeble. ** That’s the point. That’s how the “You’re saying we deserved it you beast!” rag * goes. * Make any kind of critical comment about US foreign policy in the same room with anyone discussing 9/11 and Boom! you are blaming the victim.
Instead of talking about “implies” “suggests” and “intended”, let’s see if you can make that leap by referring * exclusively, specifically, and strictly literally to only the exact words that have been written. * ** No ** interpretation, no extrapolation, no reading between the lines.
You will quickly discover that you cannot make that leap.
And considering the issues, I have felt all along that that should be SOP in examining anyone’s words on the subject. Because anything else involves all kinds of subjective assumptions that none of us is qualified to make, and that devolves into pure opinion and the predictable “Nu uh! Uh huh! Did not! Did too!”
You do not know Pico’s heart or anyone else’s but your own. We are all obliged to deal only with what we know for sure, and in this case it is only the words he used.
Work with only the facts, and you will go far…
We wuz attacked by sum crazy Muslims. Simple’s thet. Ain’t nuthin’ we kin do but tries to kilz 'em, 'afore themns kilz us.
In the alternative: we could convert to Islam, cover women with burkas and hajibs, implement Shari’a law, blow Israel off the face of the Earth, and kiss Usama’s ass.
An intermediate plan: pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, adopt a more neutral posture vis-a-vis Israel, push for democratic reforms in the Islamic nations (could backfire, but, hell, nothing works anyway), and try to counter the crazy Islamic propaganda that passes for news over there: Jews eat babies, blew up the WTC, yadda.
Will any of the plans work in the real world? I doubt it. Maybe if we kill enough radicals as per plan #1 the others will hide more often.
The word “pretext” keeps floating through my head. As in, “What a convenient and useful pretext, using the whole Israeli - Palestinian crisis as an alleged justification for the 9/11/01 attacks on the U.S.”
Wrong, he did tell them that by telling America that.
So we were attacked and we should be humble? I’m all for self examination, but this is bullshit.
With all due respect, I think this is a pretty untenable position, as our media needs vast improvement as well. With the exception of NPR (which rocks), I haven’t seen anything even remotely resembling sober, honest analysis from the mainstream network media regarding this issue, which is where most Americans get their news.
Besides, former U.S. generals and current Republican senators are saying that war with Iraq has little if anything to do with terrorism. So that particular suggestion doesn’t automatically put one in the crackpot category.
I’m going to address Jodi directly on one thing, say thanks to a friend, and then explain my position to the slow kids in the class. After that, I’ll stay out of this grade school level trainwreck.
First, thanks, Stoid, but the compliment is unwarranted. I am neither patient nor extraordinarily wise (though wiser, I’ll warrant, than some). Don’t draw fire directed at me, my friend; I’ll do just fine on my own.
Second, Jodi: “And heaven save whatever rape victim you might run into from the sweet comfort of your ‘counsel.’”
You arrogant shit. You know nothing of my counselling or comforting abilities, or the degree to which I’ve brought them to bear. I hope you never have need of someone the way a few of the loved ones in my life have had need of me. But having wished you well to that degree, I also wish you’d go pound sand up your ass, you pathetic twit.
My position, for those of you who are analogy impaired:
I object to the rape analogy because it’s inapt, it’s self-serving and it is used to perpetuate the marginalization of dissent. I object to the “but we’re the victim” reaction to Iyer’s column because it’s childish and irrelevant.
The Rape Analogy is Inapt
The essential element of all rapes is that the victim must be at some point and by some method subjected against his or her will to the abuses of an assailant who has temporary control over the victim. What differentiates rape from other types of physical or mental abuse is the loss of the victim’s control over the situation due to the greater physical, emotional or situational power of their attacker.
While one could argue that al Qaeda temporarily overpowered America during the attacks, it’s difficult to give credence to such an argument due to the extreme imbalance between the resources and abilities of the United States and the resources and abilities of al Qaeda and its operatives. Terrorism is frequently cited as an example of “asymmetric warfare” because this sort of act is favored by combatants who are outnumbered, outweaponed and outmaneuvered by the conventional power of their opponent.
One can certainly point out, correctly, that the attack on America was unjustified and not directly connected with specific US activities. One can rightly claim that the US is in no way responsible for the heinous actions of the terrorists, and was not the direct progenitor of their rage. All of this is true, but this fails as well to account for the tremendous difference in real power between the attackers and their target.
A smaller, lesser, weaker and far less powerful attacker who conducts a terror bombing through stealth, and then goes into hiding has not committed a “rape”. He is far more like a punk who’s knifed a patrolman from behind and dodged into an alley than he is like the brute who pulls an old lady into an alley and molests her.
And the US is much more like the powerful, affluent and assertive neighborhood leader than we are the old lady. And as that neighborhood leader, we piss off a lot of punks; we have to, it goes with the position. There’s a lot of punks out there, carrying much worse than bricks, and we’re on the whole a very good neighbor. We’re the biggest part of the neighborhood watch. When we were attacked by the al Qaeda punk, it was traumatic, painful, unjustified and horrendous, but it was not a rape.
The Rape Analogy is Self Serving
Everybody in this country with at least a lick of sense and a modicum of morality understands at a basic level that rape victims are without blame. They do not cause their own rape by their behavior, looks, way of dress or choice of activities. They have neither created the rapist nor the rapist’s rage.
By portraying America as The Rape Victim, we effectively shut the door on responsibility for the monsters we’ve helped to create in the world. As rape victim, we are blameless and exempt from any obligation to the countries within which our attackers find ways to operate. As rape victim, we allow ourselves to be offended at any suggestion that we might need to act more responsibly in the neighborhood.
The “US is Victim” Criticism is Childish and Irrelevant
To object to Iyer’s column on the grounds that it is naïve, that we cannot with good conscience be routinely gentle while our friends require our help is valid. To object on the grounds that we find it offensive in our status as “victim” is peurile, irresponsible self indulgence.
The Rape Analogy Perpetuates Marginalization of Dissent
It’s real convenient not to have to answer criticisms.
Note to well, you know who you are 
:
If there is a causal relationship between “US foreign policy during the last 10 years” and "the heightened animosity towards the US from Muslim terrorists, it should be noted that the vast majority of said foreign policy was conducted under the auspices of the Clinton Administration. FWIW.
oh good, I thought we weren’t going to be able to draw the line to “it’s all Clintons’ fault anyhow”. thanks.