These quotes are in my AIM profile today. Some of my friends thought they were insensitive to the victims of 9/11, but they accurately describe how I feel.
Norman Mailer:
“When you have a great country it’s your duty to be critical of it so it can become even greater.”
“There’s just too much anger here, too much ruptured vanity, too much shock, too much identity crisis. And worst of all, too much patriotism. Patriotism in a country that’s failing has a logical tendency to turn fascistic.”
Nelson Mandela:
“The United States has made serious mistakes in the conduct of its foreign affairs, which have had unfortunate repercussions long after the decisions were taken.”
Me:
“It’s the oil, it always has been. Let’s fucking do something about it. War is not always the answer. Let’s invest in renewable fuels, and let’s give a voice to Islamic moderates.”
Poppycock. Claptrap. Horsefeathers. In a word, well, all that stuff. (This ain’t the pit, after all).
A pre 9/11 quote that sums it up:
“The subtlest change in New York is something people don’t speak about much but that is in everyone’s mind. The city, for the first time in its long history, is destructible. A single flight of planes no bigger than a wedge of geese can quickly end this island fantasy, burn the towers, crumble the bridges…The intimation of mortality is part of New York now: in the sound of jets overhead, in the black headlines of the latest edition.
All dwellers in cities must live with the stubborn fact of annihilation: in New York the fact is somewhat more concentrated because of the concentration of the city itself, and because, of all targets, New York has a certain clear priority. In the mind of whatever perverted dreamer might loose the lightning, New York must hold a steady, irresistible charm.”
So EB White predicted a 9/11 like event 50 years ago, what does that have to with the problems we face today?
I think Americans feel empowered by 9/11. Now not only are we the superpower to come out on top of the last century, we are victims as well. I sympathize with the victims of 9/11 and their families, my own sister was nearly one, and I don’t think its prudent to let our attackers feel they can achieve their goals by performing acts of unprecedented terror, but our current attitude is not going to make this problem go away, it’s only exacerbating things.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “America was asking for it.” But I do think several regretful instances of American intervention in the Middle East have played a large role in the creation of such widely supported radical groups. The examples that stand out most sharply are Carter’s support of the Shah in Iran, and our subsequent arming of the Iraqis in the hopes they would cut short the ’79 revolution, and the lack of support for Kurdish rebels following the Gulf War. I’m not downplaying the Israel problem, but I do think the U.S. has shown its oil concerns override any desire for democracy and human rights in the Middle East we profess at world summits. Henry Kissinger once said, “oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs.” I think that pretty much sums up our foreign policy in that region of the world since oil was discovered there.
There is no justification for the acts of 9/11/01. No rationalization. No excuses. It was very, very wrong. Not a single “but” should attempt to describe what “caused” the acts. Nothing can possibly make the victims of 9/11/01 deserving of the tragedy that befell them. Any suggestion to the contrary is wrong.
That is not to say a responsible person should not ask, “What made the perpetrators so hateful that they would commit such an unreasonable act?” The question is a good one, and deserves a thoughtful response. Furthermore, if said responsible person discovers that he is, in fact, guilty of not doing the right thing in the past, he should attempt to rehabilitate himself.
However, the calls for rehabilitation does not, and should not, suggest any culpability. While we can be culpable for making others hate us, we cannot be culpable for their unreasonable acts.
There is no rationalization for the terrorist acts of 9/11? Maybe not to you or many Americans, but to millions of Islamists worldwide there is. The fact they view 9/11 as a step forward, a day worth commemorating is itself symptomatic of a mindset that has lost all touch with the rationality that you say is incompatible with 9/11, the rationality that says murder is never an acceptable tool and that life is precious. To those millions, our enemy, life is no longer precious; the destabilization of the status quo is what they have been striving for and 9/11 certainly fit the bill. America would like to say they are simply violent animals, mad men with distorted perceptions of the world. What we won’t address is the fact that we played a role in shaping that perception.
I want to reiterate that I DO NOT in any way, shape, or form support the use of terrorism. I don’t want rebels anywhere to believe they can achieve their goals through the wholesale murder of civilians. I don’t think outright appeasement is the solution, but neither is war. There is a middle ground between Bush and bin Laden where millions of moderates see the peaceful coexistence of Islam and the West.
Are Americans asking themselves that question? Some of us are for sure, Democrats mostly I’d wager. But I find the media reflects a country where uninformed patriotism is running rampant, as is moral indignation and a sense that we have the power and the right to act alone in this world.
Now this one I really don’t get. We acknowledge the need for rehabilitation as you put it but we’re still not culpable? If our populace unexpectedly changes its opinion and decides we have been doing things in the past that require us to make amends for, aren’t we recognizing that we were at least partially responsible for those things in the first place?
The basic problem is that Osama bin Laden attacked us because:
The US is not an Islamic theocracy, and
US soldiers set foot on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War in order to defend it against Saddam.
Unless you are willing to classify either of these as a “mistake”, this endless breast-beating about what we did wrong is beside the point.
9/11 was the fault of those who attacked us. The way to avoid future attacks is to kill those who attacked us.
It is very laudable that the US is willing to do this kind of self-examination, but it is not always appropriate to spread the guilt around. Keep in mind that Osama bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia for his anti-government, and Saudi Arabia is not known for its support of Israel, or as an opponent of the Kyoto protocol, or any of the other issues that groups have battened on after the fact to use to beat up the US.
You are not alone in not understanding a very simple principle.
If you rape your neighbor’s daughter, does that give your neighbor the right to kill your son? Yes, rape is very very bad. Murder is worse. Furthermore, murdering an innocent in order to punishes someone who is guilty is warped and deranged.
Wow. I just got an epiphany. No wonder people have such a hard time getting this. This type of behavior is encouraged and taught in the Bible. Referring back to the “Is the J/C God evil?” thread, the people who answered in the affirmative were all pointing to portions of the Bible where all of the first born of Egypt were slaughtered because of the acts of the Pharoh. Where childrens heads were dashed upon rocks and women were raped in the name of God, etc., etc.
I’m officially turning in my resignation to the human race. You all disgust me too much. I think I heard a giraffe mention they are hiring.
Lets go back. You said, “if a responsible person discovers that he is, in fact, guilty of not doing the right thing in the past, he should attempt to rehabilitate himself.” “However, the calls for rehabilitation does not, and should not, suggest any culpability.” That’s the statement I said I didn’t understand, and I still don’t.
Second, I wasn’t arguing that the terrorists were justified in their actions because of our misdeeds in their land. I was arguing that they use that rationale to explain their desperate and morally reprehensible attitude. Warped and deranged is a relative term, if someone committed unspeakable brutalities on your family and left you with nothing save the clothes on your back and the will to enact revenge, violent retribution might seem like a rational option.
Personally, I think the US along with the international community should continue to hunt down terrorists. But at the same time they should acknowledge the effect of their interventionist policies and make amends in the form of financial aid to moderate Islamic organizations.
Those points are valid description of some of bin Laden’s motivations, but not all, and they certainly don’t cover the range of grievances the Islamic world community is up in arms about. Also, I would classify the Gulf War as a mistake on America’s part. I think however the best example is Iran, so I’ll save the Gulf War for later.
In 1953 the CIA helped to overthrow the democratically elected Mossadeq government in Iran and installed the Shah because Mossadeq had nationalized a British oil company. In ’52 the International Court of Justice had ruled in the dispute that investors must assume the risk of nationalization in the country in which they invest. So we went in covertly, and did what we wanted anyway.
The Shah plotted a course of development for Iran that was visibly out of sync with the Islamic majority, but because the U.S. wanted to hold onto its strongest supporter in the Middle East, the widespread torture, repression, and unwelcomed westernization his people lived with for over two decades was clandestinely supported. Mossadeq was no less a tyrant than the Shah, but he was the man selected by the people. If Mossadeq had oppressed his citizens, as he surely would have, the Iranians could not have pointed the finger at us.
After decades under the watchful eye of the Shah’s secret police the Iranians began violent demonstrations in 1978. To show support for the threatened monarchy Jimmy Carter flew to Iran and at a televised banquet announced that despite his abhorrence of human rights violations, a major platform of his candidacy, he fully supported the oppressive Shah and considered Iran the United States’ greatest ally in the near east. In effect Carter told the Iranians that human rights and political pluralism were the exclusive luxury of Westerners. Several Muslims have told me that this night is bitterly remembered by much of the Islamic community.
Had America left the nation to its own devices it’s likely power would have eventually been taken by the same fundamentalists that came to power in the 1979 revolution anyway, only they would have had no reason to take U.S. hostages. Nor would we have chosen to arm Saddam Hussein in the hopes that he would bring a swift end to Khomeini’s new republic.
Despite the tensions that still exist in Iran over the place and power of Islamic jurists in implementing shariah (Islamic Law) the nation has been steadily democratizing and modernizing over the past 20 years and the West has hypocritically opposed them every step of the way. The end result of this sad but mostly forgotten chapter in American history is despite America’s loss of control in Iran, the nation still trades oil at reasonable prices.
That still leaves the Soviets. It’s possible if we didn’t install a puppet the Soviets would have. But, if that was our outlook our foreign covert activities should been focused on preventing such a thing and supporting domestic popularist movements, especially those that favored democratic ideals. Why devote our energies to overthrowing legitimate regimes, when would could have been eliminating illegitimate Soviet ones? I think the answer lies again in Kissinger’s slip of the tongue; we simply didn’t trust anyone and particularily not the Arabs. Oil was too important. I think the situation in modern Iran proves that our suspicions were unfounded, but either way we are now paying the price for our mistrust.
Could we ever get them all? There are millions of Islamists that currently support suicide attacks.
No argument there. I love my country for all the noble things it stands for like liberty, justice, and democracy, but I take it to task for the not so nice things it has done and refuses to accept responsibility for. We’re not always the good guy either.
What E.B. White was “predicting” in that particular quote was that New York would probably be at the top of the list of U.S. targets for a nuclear strike. He was writing in 1949, shortly after the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb. The “single flight of planes no bigger than a wedge of geese” he referred to was not a bunch of hijacked airliners, but a squadron of Soviet bombers.
Wasn’t meant to. It was meant a) to redirect your attention to the actual thing that occurred, and b) to give you access to actual literate English by a master of the genre, as opposed to the tendentious trash you published.
Now I’m dying to hear both your refutation of the ‘trash’ I posted, and your review of the matter, which I’m sure will be utterly objective.
Also, redirect my attention all you like, I’m well aware of the human tragedy of that day, but I won’t apologize for wanting to address root causes. If America would like to prevent 9/11 the sequel they would be wise to start doing the same.
And, as you stated this isn’t the pit, if you want to attack me as a person that’s the place to do it.
It just occurred to me, pantom that you were calling Norman Mailer and Neslon Mandela’s opinions ‘tendentious trash’ and not my own, as I originally thought so I retract my last remark. But, I would still like to hear your reply to my other posts, or anyone else’s.
I think the quotes provide a constructive, reflective viewpoint, worthy of thought and consideration.
I’m not of the view that “America had it coming”, but to simply play the role of victim and write off OBL and al Qaida as raving lunatics only invites more of the same.
While we express our moral indignation, and suggest the motivation behind the attack is because “they didn’t like us”, we fail to move the discourse in a productive manner. “Kill em all” is rarely a successful strategy.
OBL and al Qaida financed, recruited, and trained a military organization. They publicly declared war on the US. On 9/11, they attacked the US military headquarters and the most visible US financial center. They killed thousands, mostly civilian men and women.
To end the war in the Pacific in WWII, the US dropped two atomic bombs, incinerating hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children.
We, as Americans, can rationalize the morality of H & N. But could we understand that many in the world may not? How would we rationalize the statement that “nothing can possibly make the victims of H & N deserving of the tragedy that befell them”? Can you debate that?
Why do we have such a problem in understanding that millions of Muslims and Arabs have no problem in rationalizing the morality of 9/11? Can’t we take a clue from the fact that within hours of the 9/11 attacks, there were street celebrations in hundreds of cities across the Mideast?
When you’re king of the hill, you look down on everyone else.
The attacks of 9/11 were heinous and despicable. But I don’t believe they were irrational.
It’s our arrogance that baffles the world. And such arrogance continues to be reflected in our foreign policy.
At about 10:30 am on 9/11/2001, I had a conversation with a coworker that went like:
Coworker: “It is clearly a terrorist attack, and we ought to go nuke 'em”
AZCowboy: “No one has taken responsibility, nuke who?”
Coworker: “Any country that has more sand than trees”
IMHO, **cainxinth **, these quotes are all foolish. I will restrain myself to a few sentences on each.
Cirticism sometimes may lead to improvement, but more often it’s a way to knock something down. I don’t hear Norm criticizing the great African race for laziness or lack of ecudation in order to help them “become even greater.” Criticism can only be useful if it’s fair and accurate. I think Mailer’s tends not to meet this standard.
Everything about this quote is wrong. The US has relatively little anger. E.g., compare the treatment of Arab-Americans today vs. Japanese-Americans during WW II. I don’t see that much patriotism, either, by historical standards. E.g., we don’t see massive patriotic parades, which were commen in the past. And, it’s just ludicrous to imply that the US is in danger of becoming facistic.
This statement alone is hard to disagree with. However, Mandela and I would not agree on what the mistakes were. E.g., I think it was a mistake not to overthrow Saddam in 1991, and it was another mistake not to overthrow him in 1998, when the inspectors got kicked out.
Naive. We are investing in renewable fuels, but they do not look anywhere near to replacing oil in tne foreseeable future. Saddam’s actions would justify the need for regime change even if he had no oil. Islamic moderates have all the voice they want here in the US. The only way I can see for them to have a voice in their home countries would be for someone to overthrow the despots who rule there. This brings us back to the need for war.
America and Africa are not nearly analogous. Mailer said “When you have a great country.” No one here would argue that the continent of Africa is doing particularly well at the moment. Personally, I think the “Guns, Germs, and Steel” anthropologic argument goes a long way in explaining that predicament, although Western foreign policy clearly plaid a role as well.
That was 50 years ago, standards of treatment for one’s enemy have changed. And you don’t see much patriotism? Maybe not massive parades but its still pervasive. It’s not that I dislike patriotism, I question the source of it. We aren’t celebrating the fact that we abolished hunger; I don’t think most Americans really know what they’re celebrating other than that they love their country. I love America too, but I’m not going to put a flag on my bumper if I don’t agree with our current politics.
Agreed. But why didn’t we overthrow Saddam in 91? Shwartzkoff said he was ready and waiting when the Bush 1 abruptly ended the war. Then Saddam was left with military resources to slaughter the Iraqi’s we told to rise up against him.
I think its naïve to think that we are devoting as many resources as possible to renewable fuels. We have two men that made their money in oil in office. According to this Wired article from February the budget for renewable fuels is $291 million dollars. That’s a pathetic figure and shows that Bush is not interesting in significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil or improving environmental conditions. Ethanol and hydrogen power are such expensive technologies because we aren’t devoting enough money to them.
I disagree about the oil. We aren’t playing the game of brinksmanship with dictators in poor countries. But here, in many regards my opinion is changing. Unexpectedly Bush is making some sense.
First he actually made a strong and reasonable case to the UN for action in Iraq. If their resolutions go un-enforced and their only actions come too late or not at all (as in Kosovo and Bosnia) they are nothing more than a sham. Naturally no one was unaware that Bush’s timing is a clear example of the tail wagging the dog (who says art imitates life). He didn’t catch OBL and he has no clear solution for the economy, the American people are clamoring for action and he’s gonna give em what they want. Plus, his cabinet is perfect for the job, they’ve done it once already.
Then today in this Washington Post article Bush made a convincing case for preemptive strikes by announcing the effective end of cold war politics. He states that deterrence is no longer a viable solution for preventing war. Deterrence requires that one’s enemy has a desire for self-preservation, and it is clear that there are forces in the world that would gladly end their existence if they could take us with them. His plan does not call for a reduction in the US military, which I think is prudent as well. “’Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States,’ Bush wrote.”
Thankfully he also mentions among his goals is “supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation.” And “Bush also pledged support for an independent and democratic Palestinian state ‘if Palestinians embrace democracy and the rule of law, confront corruption and firmly reject terror.’ Meanwhile, ‘Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop,’ Bush said.” This is imo, the single clear solution to terrorism. The answer is not to kill every last terrorist. That’s probably not even possible and if it were it would akin to ethnocide. You have to address root causes.
Some people such as myself worry that Islamists world over that hold the US responsible for its support of any oppressive tyrant that will ensure our hold on oil will take an attack on Iraq as an effrontery worthy of massive retaliation. I still haven’t heard Bush’s plan for preventing terrorists from using dirty nukes, bio weapons, or simply flying a few more planes into buildings (have you been to the airport recently? Security most closely resembles a sieve). Bush doesn’t seem to want to address that it’s very possible that no amount of money for a Homeland Security can prevent terrorism. America is by its nature a free and open society and I think most of us want it to stay that way.