But ordinary people can do heroic acts. No one, despite what comic books would have you think, is a full time hero. There is simply a time and a place where someone (or a group of someones) may step up and do heroic things. Then… usually they stop. They may do heroic things again, but most of the time they’re just ordinary people. The firefighter who dives into an inferno to try and save one last person? Probably beforehand no one would’ve picked him out of a line-up as anyone special. Good guy? Yeah. Solid person to have with you? Possibly. Kind to the neighborhood strays. But not a hero. Yet in that space and in that moment, he stepped above what we would consider “normal” and did something extraordinary. And maybe he died in the attempt. Or maybe he lived and received some moment in the spotlight, something to tell his kids about… and then went back to being ordinary again.
mangeorge, you say that you’re sure you and a bunch of other people would’ve done the same thing in the same situation. Had you done so, I would see no contradiction in calling you a hero. But you’ve not been in that situation. I’ve not been in that situation. Hopefully we never will be. Maybe in all of us is the seed of a hero just waiting for that one right moment to shine in the sun, when we also might step above ordinary for one single desperate purpose… but for most of us those circumstances never come. And I’m all right with that, because those circumstances are often too gruesome to imagine.
Of course! But they don’t stop being a hero when the attention dies down. I’ve never heard of anyone being referred to as an ex-hero.
Remember the young woman captured and then rescued from the hospital in Iraq? She was initially called a hero. She tried to make it clear that she was not a hero. I’ll bet that some of the loved ones of the passengers of 93 wish we’d just be quiet and go away. What if one of them knows for sure that the group was trying to take control and maybe land the plane.
FYI, folks, some aircraft can practically land themselves. I saw one do it on TV.
No one’s referred to as an ex-hero, right, but they stop doing heroic things. Thus… for a time at least, they stop being heroic. Also, the label of hero is not something an individual applies to themself, but rather a designation society gives them. Most people we deem heros probably do not see themselves as one, because for the most part they are just ordinary people. We’re not equipped to see ourselves as larger than life figures… but sometimes it turns out that we are.
My point is you keep saying “well what if?”, “what if?”, “what if?” and I say it doesn’t matter to me at all. So what if they were just trying to save the passengers and crew of the airplane (themselves included)? So what if they were trying to save another target with an unknown quantity of lives from being blasted out of the sky? Whatever their intentions, they did something courageous and wildly outside our normal expectations of average human beings. That’s the stuff of heroics.
Great Debates? Ok. But there doesn’t seem to be much debating going on. Some seem to be taking exactly what I say, repeating it, and applying it to their side of the, uh, discussion. A matter of perception, I say.
Take Priam’s much repeated “what if”. The whole idea of the passengers intentionally scaring the terrorists into crashing the plane is a “what if”. And a pretty wild notion, IMO.
Anyway, my oridinal reason for bringing this all up was to speculate as to whether Kerry was jumping on the band wagon to exploit 9/11. After listening to speeches and reading about his campaign, I don’t think so. There seems to be no consensus as to whether the passengers were heros or not, and he didn’t flat out say they were.
I went back over a bunch of my previous posts and didn’t find any “what if”'s. Of course, I didn’t want to find any, so I might’ve missed some.
But here’s one; What if the passengers had managed to get into the cockpit and the terrorists were outside, trying to get in? The passengers couldn’t be sure if the terrorists would succeed or not, and they were getting closer and closer to civilization. If they crashed the plane, intentionally, in a remote field they’d be heros, no arguement. But what if they safely landed (on autopilot) at a remote, secure airport and the terrorists were arrested? What if they circled till the plane ran out of fuel and fell from the sky? What if a fighter shot them down (with pass in control)?
What if a fighter had shot them down with the terrorists in control?
There ya go, lotsa "what if’s.
And please, stop trying to infer that I’m attempting to demean the passengers in any way. It’s quite obvious that I’m not. “Ordinary” is not a bad thing.
I hadn’t read this article or seen the interview with Russert. What it tells me is that 1) War is hell. You put a bunch of barely-trained kids into a jungle situation where they know that every breath may be their last, and they’ll do anything to stay alive. 2) Kerry felt bad about it, because 3) when he came back to the United States he testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the world, to get the word out about what was happening in Vietnam, and to our young men stationed there. He didn’t try to hide it, he didn’t try to cover it up, he didn’t try to sweep it under the rug and he didn’t try to minimise it. He tried to do something about it, so that other kids wouldn’t have to do the same sorts of things.
I excuse nothing done in the heat of battle, but he confronted the moral weight of it head-on.
Here’s text and an audio recording of Kerry’s testimony:
Only the most dishonest of people can read or listen to this and not get a sense of the genuine, human decency of the young man speaking out against the horrors of Vietnam. That Republicans are turning the war experiences of John Kerry against him, by misrepresenting, distorting, and outright lying, just shows to me how black their minds, hearts and souls are.
Btw, where was Bush during all this? Oh yeah, AWOL.
Let’s look at some of the many many many flip-flops Bush has pulled:
Bush Flip: Initially Opposed to Independent 9/11 Commission
Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a “statement of policy” that read “…the Administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review [to Congress’s investigation].” [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02; LA Times, 11/28/02]
Bush Flop: Bush Relented and Appointed Independent Commission
President Bush finally agreed to support an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks after “the congressional committees unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses, the administration reversed its stance.” [Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02]
2. Bush Flip-Flops on Independent WMD Commission
Bush Flip: Refuses to Call for Independent Bipartisan Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction
“President Bush said on January 30, 2004, ‘I want to know the facts’ about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein’s alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation.” [AP, 1/30/04]
Bush Flop: Bush Appoints WMD Investigation Commission
President Bush named a nine-member bipartisan commission to investigate U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities in February 2004. The AP noted, “Bush had initially opposed a commission, but agreed to do so as calls grew from Republican lawmakers as well as Democrats.” The Los Angeles Times reported, “The White House opposed that panel initially, then backed down under pressure, and some say administration officials now regret doing so because the administration has become locked in a series of embarrassing battles with the Sept. 11 commission.” The New York Times noted Bush “gave the panel until March 2005, well after the November elections, to submit its conclusions.” [NY Times, 2/7/04; LA Times, 2/1/04; AP, 2/6/04]
3. Bush Flip-Flops on Time He’ll Spend With 9/11 Commission
Bush Flip: Would Meet For Only One Hour With 9/11 Commission
McClellan: Obviously, as part of this, the President will be meeting with the chairman and vice chairman at some point in the near future. We are still working on the exact time of that meeting. We have discussed with the commission what we believe is a reasonable period of time to provide the chairman and vice chairman with answers to all of their questions.
Q: Is that the one-hour time frame?
McClellan: That’s what I’m referring to. [WH Press Briefing, 3/9/04]
Bush Flop: White House Says No Time Limit on President’s Testimony
“President George W. Bush will privately answer all questions raised by the federal commission investigating the September 11 attacks, the White House said, suggesting that Bush might allow the interview to extend beyond the one-hour limit originally offered to the panel by the White House. ‘He’s going to answer all the questions they want to raise,’ said the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, whose remarks suggested that the White House was softening its negotiating stance toward the bipartisan commission. ‘Nobody’s watching the clock.’” [WH Press Briefing, 3/9/04; International Herald Tribune, 3/11/04]
4. Bush Flip-Flops On Calling For A U.N. Vote On Iraq War
Bush Flip: U.S. Will Seek U.N. Vote For War With Iraq
Bush: …yes, we’ll call for a vote.
Question: No matter what?
Bush: No matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It’s time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam. [Bush News Conference, 3/6/03, emphasis added]
Bush Flop: Bush Attacked Iraq Without U.N. Vote
Bush “failed to win explicit [security] council approval for the use of force” in Iraq. Two days before bombs began to fall in Iraq, the Bush administration withdrew its resolution from the UN Security Council that would have authorized military force. Bush abandoned his call for a vote after it became clear that the US could muster only four votes in support of force. [Washington Post, 3/21/03; Los Angeles Times, 3/18/03]
5. Bush Flip-Flops on Department Of Homeland Security
Bush Flip: Bush Thought Homeland Security Cabinet Position Was “Just Not Necessary”
In October 2001, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush opposed creating Office of Homeland Security position for Ridge. “[T]he president has suggested to members of Congress that they do not need to make this a statutory post, that he [Ridge] does not need Cabinet rank, for example, there does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security is because there is such overlap among the various agencies, because every agency of the government has security concerns,” Fleischer said. [White House Press Briefing, 10/24/01]
Bush Flop: Bush Decides to Support Homeland Security
The New York Times reported, “Bush initially resisted Democratic proposals for a Cabinet-level agency. But once he endorsed it, the president pushed Congress for fast action as it debated such issues as whistle-blower protections, concerns over civil liberties and collective bargaining for department employees.”
In remarks to Homeland Security Department employees, Bush claimed credit for supporting the Department: “In just 12 months, under the leadership of your President…you faced the challenges standing up this new Department and you get a – and a gold star for a job well done.” [New York Times, 2/28/03; Bush Remarks at One-Year Anniversary of DHS, 3/2/04]
6. Bush Flip-Flops on Gay Marriage
Bush Flip: It’s Up to the States to Decide
In a 2000 presidential primary debate, candidate George W. Bush said gay marriage was a state’s issue, saying, “The state can do what they want to do. Don’t try to trap me in this state’s issue like you’re trying to get me into.” [Presidential Primary Debate, 2/15/00]
Bush Flop: Bush Supports Constitutional Amendment That Restricts States’ Rights
Bush: “If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.” [Bush, 2/24/04]
7. Bush Flip-Flops on Using Military For Nation Building
Bush Flip: Bush Promised Not to Use Military for Nation Building
In a campaign rally in Tennessee, then-Presidential candidate Bush criticized the Clinton administration for using the military in nation-building missions. Bush said, “I’m worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.” [Governor George W. Bush, 11/6/00]
Bush Flop: President Used Military for Nation Building in Afghanistan and Iraq
After the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush met with soldiers stationed in Afghanistan at the White House and thanked them for their nation building efforts. A senior administration official said, “The administration, with its international partners, is doing something akin to nation-building.” The plans for a post war Iraq also included nation building measures and, according to the Baltimore Sun, “Secretary of State Colin L. Powell confirmed…that Bush was considering, among other options, installing a U.S.-led occupation government if Hussein’s regime is removed.” [Baltimore Sun, 10/19/02]
8. Bush Flip-Flops on Hybrid Automobiles
Bush Flip: Bush Mocked Gore’s Tax Credit for Hybrid Cars
“‘How many of you own hybrid electric gasoline engine vehicles? If you look under there, you’ll see that’s one of the criteria necessary to receive tax relief. So when he talks about targeted tax relief that’s pretty darn targeted,’ Bush told the Arlington Heights rally, drawing laughs.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 10/29/00]
Bush Flop: Bush Supported Investing in Hybrid Cars
In his State of the Union speech, Bush said, “Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. … Join me in this important innovation, to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy.” [White House, “President Delivers ‘State of the Union,’” 1/28/03]
9. Bush Flip-Flops on Assault Weapons Ban
Bush Flip: Bush Supports Extending Assault Weapons Ban
Ashcroft: “It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I will be pleased to move forward with that position.” [Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/17/01]
Bush Flop: Bush Opposes Extension of Assault Weapons Ban
“The White House is opposing addition of gun show and assault weapons restrictions to a bill shielding firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits, prompting angry complaints from Democrats that President Bush is reneging on earlier support for the two proposals…In a statement [on February 24, 2004], the White House urged passage of the lawsuits measure without amendments that might delay its enactment. ‘Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable,’ the statement said. Democrats interpreted this as an effort to undermine support for the gun-control measures. ‘For the president to say he is for the assault weapons ban but then act against it is a flip-flop if there ever was one,’ said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of several sponsors of the assault weapons proposal in the Senate.” [Washington Post, 2/26/04]
10. Bush Flip-Flops on Steel Tariffs
Bush Flip: Bush Imposes Steel Tariffs
“President Bush on [March 5, 2002] slapped punishing tariffs of 8% to 30% on several types of imported steel in an effort to help the ailing U.S. industry, drawing criticism from American allies and mixed reviews at home. ‘An integral part of our commitment to free trade is our commitment to enforcing trade laws to make sure that America’s industries and workers compete on a level playing field,’ Bush said in a statement issued by the White House.” [USA Today, 3/5/02]
Bush Flop: Bush Rescinds Steel Tariffs
“Facing a potential global trade war, President Bush on [December 4, 2003] lifted tariffs he imposed on foreign steel 21 months ago, declaring the U.S. steel industry healthy and ready to compete despite the industry’s claim that it needs more time to recover.” [Chicago Tribune, 12/5/03]
The only conclusion one can draw from this is that mangeorge’s opinion is this: if the passengers didn’t actually reach the cockpit during their rush to take over the plane, they sacrificed nothing.
Apparently, in your world, mangeorge, nobody gets credit for and failing against nearly insurmountable odds, and if all they did was try unsuccessfully when they could easily have remained seated until they crashed in Washington, it’s the same as if they had done nothing. Is that it?
Because otherwise I’m at a loss as to just what point you’re trying to make here.
Yes, I did remember his comments incorrectly, which answers my question;
Doesn’t it? I wondered about that after I posted.
Some of you are really grabbing at straws to try and show that I’m saying something I’m not. Nowhere have I tried to diminish their actions. I doubt what some say were their intentions, is all. I’m not convinced that they were trying to make the terrorists crash the plane prematurely. Nor am I convinced that they were trying to take the plane and land it, for that matter. The report implies that they were trying really hard to enter the cockpit. Remaining seated (your idea, not mine) would guarantee death. Taking the controls offered at least a vestige of hope for survival. Survival for the people on the plane, and for those in Washington.
And we are, my friend, of the same world. So were those passengers.
So Equipoise we may agree if you are stating that Kerry may have exaggerated his war experience and didn’t really commit war crimes, but then you must accept that he may have exaggerated his ‘heroics’.
The other option is to accept that he did commit war crimes, but why was he not tried. I don’t think there is a statute of limitations on them and burning of villages qualifies as a war crime. What I conclude is that Kerry is exaggerating (to be nice) his experience in Vietnam, perhaps to the point where he now believes his own stories. Having Vets who served with him, and was on swift boats alongside him and doctors who treated him, actually pony up money to make his fraud known is pretty damming.
I must conclude that Kerry was a coward in a difficult position and acted as a coward would, and fibbed about him and many other solders to oppose the war once he got back. Due to this I can NOT EVER trust him in a position of leadership, and will NOT consider him a hero.
As for what you post about Bush’s so called ‘flip-flops’, This is getting to far off topic, has NOTHING to do with the hero status of the passengers of 93, nor does it do anything to eliminate the coward status of Kerry, but if you wish to muddy the waters any more feel free, but this will be the last time I address that tactic in this thread.
What’s that, kanicbird? You don’t want anyone else to get "too far off topic?
And I don’t think Kerry has a “coward status” to be eliminated. Where are you getting this stuff, anyway? Kerry, in a maybe oblique way, is the subject of this thread. You need to read a little more deeply into those (largely debunked) accusations and learn who is actually footing the bill to promulgate them.
If you can’t find facts, regarding Kerry’s service, let me know and I’ll try to help. If you google “swift boat veterans” you’ll find tons of info.
:smack:
From that link: “The day after John F. Kerry said he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters, a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving undisclosed many of Kerry’s evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material.”
I need something more specific. The links I provided have fitness reports and casualty reports, and, well, a great deal of “other material.” What, specifically, is missing? The unnamed reporter in your link apparently wasn’t able to get them in April, but they’re posted online now. What is missing? Or do we just assume something is missing, and take that assumption as grounds for saying, “Kerry will NOT release his war record”?
Uh, that site, taken as a whole, doesn’t do a lot to support your POV.
Why’d you link us there? I can find stuff much more critical of Kerry.
Every step down this path is a step further away from the presidency for Bush, and the republicans know it. They can’t draw attention away from the economy forever.
I don’t know WHY it’s so important for you to do this, but you ought to at least own up to it.
I can only assume that you do not get why your statement make not one damn bit of sense in this world or any other. Let me try to fight your ignorance:
Dichotomy #1: Either the hijackers intended to crash the plane into a DC government building, or they didn’t.
There is every indication that they did.
Dichotomy #2: Either the plot succeeded or it didn’t
As we all know, the plane crashed in a PA and not Washington, so the plot did not succeed.
Dichotomy #3: Either the plane crashed by accident, or someone is responsible for bringing it down.
No available evidence points to an accident (although before the Commission report, I had assumed the passengers took control of the plane and either lost it during a struggle or simply didn’t know how to fly it well enough to keep it under control).
Assumption #1 (on the part of any reasoning human): Whoever is responsible for bringing that plane down saved the day, and is a hero in anyone’s book.
or to rephrase it more as a statement in formal logic:
IF x is responsible, THEN x is heroic
This is the standard “p implies q” format.
Dichotomy #4: Either the responsible party was inside the plane or somewhere else.
Conspiracy theorists aside, no one is claiming that an outside agent is responsible for the plane’s crash.
Dichotomy #5: Those responsible were either the passengers (along with any remaining crew that were not incapacitated) or the hijackers.
This is to be determined, and can be rephrased:
Either x is the passengers, or x is the terrorists
Assumption #2 (The mangeorge Assertion): The passengers were not heroic by any stretch of the imagination, not no way, not no how.
Therefore if x is the passengers, then x is not heroic which sets up “not q” in Assumption #1. and since “p implies q” is equivalent to “not q implies not p”, our assumption that whoever is responsible for bringing the plane down (x) is a hero is wrong if x is the passengers. However, we have assumed this to be true.
Fortunately, Dichotomy #5 gives us an out if we wish to save Assumption #1. Assuming The mangeorge assertion to be true, we find that the heroes who saved the Capitol Building and/or the White House, the heroes who deserve posthumous medals, statues and other accolades, are the very terrorists intent on crashing the plane into those buildings in the first place. Ta-da! Bravo, lads!
Whoops! This means we’ve reached a contradiction: That the hijackers were heroes and not heroes at the same time. Any logician will tell you that an assumption that leads to a contradiction is false. We therefore must conclude that Assumption #2 is wrong, and, since terrorists can not be heroic, abd the passengers are the only ones left from Dichotomy #5, it must be they who are ultimately responsible for the plane’s crash in PA and are the heroes.
UNLESS you can can show that Assumption #1 itself is false. That is, if you can convince us (as you have been desperately trying to do for two pages) that it is not true that whoever took direct action that resulted in the rescue of the Capitol from peril is a hero, then you will have saved your assertion that the passengers are not heroic.
Of course, if you succeed (you won’t) in convincing the rest of us of this, you will have only succeeded in proving what we have been trying to get across to you this whole time, you poor person:
If the passengers aboard flight 93 are not heroes, no one is.
In the end, this thread does not belong in IMHO or GD.
It belongs in General Questions, where it could have been phrased:
mangeorge: If you take action to avert a disaster, knowingly placing yourself in harm’s way to do so (in other words, making a personal sacrifice of yourself), and even though you fail to complete that action, the disaster is averted anyway through the simple fact of your attempt, should we regard you as a hero?
A matter of perception, I say.