Right back atcha. You know nothing about me, yet you accuse me of “blubbering” over 9/11 – something that happened a whole “freakin’ year ago.” If you don’t like being talked to like you’re ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag, then don’t talk to others that way. Capiche?
And is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain stem, the rape analogy is considerably less inapt than comparing the attack to having a brick thrown at one. You say that “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.” But you refuse to see that you have just described exactly what happened on 9/11. Is it willful blindness? Or just blindness?
We ARE blameless for this act. Get it? WE ARE BLAMELESS FOR THIS ACT. There is nothing we could have done to deserve it; no basis for saying that the U.S. was in any way “to blame” for the deaths of 3000 people and for you to argue otherwise is insulting and stupid. Far from showing that the analogy is “self-serving,” you have highlighted precisely why it is a very useful analogy. Because we were NOT to blame for the use of jetliners as bombs, aimed at civilian targets in flagrant violation of every standard of human decency. You may legitimately ask, what can we do to prevent this? Or even, why are they so mad at us? But you cannot say the U.S. is to blame for this. As if any nation ever could be.
It is “self-serving” to say we are not to blame? To argue otherwise is a position beneath contempt.
I brought the rape analogy up to begin with, and I agree that it is not the best. I said so much in my second post when I put forth a more apt analogy about Oklahoma City. If we can move on beyond that less than perfect analogy, my points still hold.
Mr. Iyer’s is saying that the victims should be “humble” because a crime has been commited against them:
and he is blaming the victim:
He’s saying if we just don’t do the same things, it won’t happen. He’s saying that if we can just avoid what we did in the past we can prevent getting hurt. He’s drawing a causal line between our actions and the tragedy. He may have misspoken, but he’s still an ass.
I brought the rape analogy up to begin with, and I agree that it is not the best. I said so much in my second post when I put forth a more apt analogy about Oklahoma City. If we can move on beyond that less than perfect analogy, my points still hold.
Mr. Iyer’s is saying that the victims should be “humble” because a crime has been commited against them:
and he is blaming the victim:
He’s saying if we just don’t do the same things, it won’t happen. He’s saying that if we can just avoid what we did in the past we can prevent getting hurt. He’s drawing a causal line between our actions and the tragedy. He may have misspoken, but he’s still an ass.
Stoid, these are Mr. Iyer’s exact words. This is the meaning that they convey.
Rape is still an imperfect analogy, but something just occured to me. I have known two rape victims in my life. One wanted to find the guys, hunt them down, and kill them. She was pissed and might have killed somebody if me and our friends didn’t calm her down and convince her to call the cops instead. The other became morose and spent far too much time blaming herself. We told her “you aren’t the one at fault here”, but she still felt guilty. Nobody told her that she shouldn’t have walked through that neighbohood. Rape is an imperfect analogy, but it’s not that far off the mark.
All I’m saying is that I find it interesting that some of the people who are now blaming “American foreign policy” for the attacks are the very same people who, to this day, are the supporters of the President who carried out said “American foreign policy” for the 8 years before the attacks, while the current President, and his foreign policy was only in effect for 8 months before the attacks.
I never said “It’s all Clinton’s fault”. But those who are blaming “American foreign policy” sure seem to be, whether they realize it or not.
Uh, I said nothing about “our” media being perfect (in fact I did not mention American reporting at all). Since you bring it up, I think it’s been generally far more intelligent and responsible in its coverage and commentary than the examples from the foreign press quoted on the SDMB, with their screaming allegations of “Torture!” etc.**
Perhaps you could cite examples of “former U.S. generals and current Republican senators” who think our policy towards Iraq is driven by money and politics, as the Argentinian press supposedly believes.
And any Americans you might find who actually believe that are swimming way, way outside the mainstream.
Look, some people are back in full “blame America mode”, and I merely pointed out that the foreign policy that is supposedly responsible for the attacks is, well, largely Bill Clinton’s. What, am I wrong? Let’s see, last ten years, Clinton was in charge of foreign policy for eight of those years.
Various analogies are being tossed about: rape, assault, etc., but IMHO, none of it matters.
We were attacked, and we are not to blame.
It’s completely disingenious for people to say “no, America is not to blame, BUT, American foreign policy is”. What’s worse, it’s completely hypocritical for the people who make that argument
to be the same people who supported said foreign policy.
Disingenuous? How about blaming Bill for the attacks of 9-11. That’s disingenuous. How’s about we go back to George Sr and the instability left after the gulf war? How’s about we go back to Reagon and the instability caused by using middle eastern countries as pawns in the cold war? How’s about we go back to Carter and the debacle with the Shaw? Hell, let’s go back to Teddy Roosevelt and his “carry a big stick”. As you might have noticed, Milroy, I’m against blaming America. You’re dead wrong here.
Clinton is not to blame. The US is not to blame. Fundamentalist muslim terrorist splinter groups are to blame.
**I know you didn’t. The comment of yours I quoted just struck me as ironic, since the words you chose to criticize Estilicon almost exactly describe my own frustration with our media.
And since it’s been brought up, I think that one can find examples of foreign media (think BBC) which far surpass ours in both depth of coverage and evenhandedness. Ours is not the worst, by any means. But it’s far below where it should be, considering the resources it has and the freedom it enjoys. Bragging how much better it is than, e.g., Syria is sort of sad.
**
Here is an example of former U.S. general Anthony Zinni discussing how a war with Iraq would not only not help fight terrorism, it would be actively counterproductive. He also notes that former generals including Norman Schwartzkopf and former security advisor Brent Scowcroft “share his concerns”, regarding the consequences of an attack on Iraq. There have been many examples of Republican congresspeople expressing concern over the usefulness and purpose of an attack on Iraq in the last few weeks. There’s also the fact that Bush was making noise before September 11th about attacking Iraq. So, as I said, making the statement that a war with Iraq is not about terrorism is not a crackpot idea by any means.
As for whether it is about economics or politics, I can’t really say. I still haven’t heard the Bush administration give a single reason beyond “Saddam is bad” and “Saddam having weapons is bad”. I agree with both of those, but I also think “making enemies, possibly destabilizing countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan (which has nuclear weapons), and alienating our allies” is much worse. If Bush is not willing to give intelligent, in-depth explanations for what we’re going to accomplish and how we will minimize the many possible risks, how can you blame foreign media for drawing their own, possibly incorrect, conclusions?
That’s just because your brain is too damn small to process the fact that I don’t think in terms of black and white. Life is far more interesting than pro/con.
Umm, if you read the original quote, establishing the possiblity of causality between “American Foreign Policy” (AFP) and, to paraphrase, “Why They Hate Us” (WTHU), you’ll see that the quote indicated that WTHU was caused by the AFP over the last ten years.
Mr. Clinton is responsible for 8/10ths of that AFP.