of those four people, i am pretty sure only coulter actually uttered public support for a terrorist act against the united states.
And “America” in the world is in large part seen as their capitalist/imperialist ways.
Which isn’t quite my opinion, by the way.
But this is the Arab part of the world, not the world as a whole. They are more upset about our government policies and our pervasive cultural influence than about our market based economy.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure hating America for being capitalist mostly occurs among first world liberals. People in India love their new tech support jobs. They might not like the way we cozied up to Pakistan, or the way we invaded Iraq, or whatever, but they enjoy talking on their cellphone as their drive their Hyundai.
The economics motivated terrorist died with the Berlin wall.
We own everything. Which has a lot of effect on the rest of the world, so I don’t think seeing their motivation as some hybrid of capitalism/imperialism-based as that off. Culture? I’d say conservatives in the US are more upset with Western culture than the Arabs.
That was the express purpose? I always thought it was about the WTC being as good a symbol as any of the imperialist/capitalist US. Sort of like doing it against the Statue of Liberty, except having a target that would actually affect said capitalist/imperialist ways.[/quote]
Actually, it was. The original plan in the early 1990s was to topple one tower into the other, causing both to fall, not collapse. The idea was to take out lots and lots of city blocks, essentially destroy New York, and kill untold thousands of people. I don’t think the basic rationale behind 9/11 really changed the plan all that much, considering that one of the lunatics even banked the wings of his plane going in in order to take out as many floors of one tower as possible. Also, remember that the plan was to hit the WTC at the start of a workday, so that lots of people would be in the buildings and in the streets below. If these lunatics had simply wanted to take out the WTC to strike at a symbol of America, they could have done it with much less loss of life if they’d hijacked a couple of redeyes to LA and hit the towers at midnight.
Terrorism has changed. It used to be about causing the biggest splash possible without causing too much loss of life. Now it’s all about body count, because that’s what drives the headlines.
Jason, I’ve actually agreed with you in a number of threads, so I’m not sure why you’re screeching like this.
Yes, I would say that any armed person who murders an unarmed civilian is a coward. These maniacs were apparently cutting the throats of female flight attendants, Jason. That’s not brave. I don’t consider mass murder to be particularly brave, either – particularly in this case, because every single one of the hijackers was absolutely convinced that he was going directly from the cockpit to paradise. Is it brave to commit suicide if you’re positive that it’s the best decision that you could ever make?
Yes. At every turn you soften Sontag’s words. Your rewrite skips over most of her text, including all the neat implications that “America” (by which Sontag apparently means the 3,000 people slaughtered that day just for going to work, or getting onto a plane) deserved 9/11. And that the precision bombing of military targets (which I’m sure you’ll laugh at, but please point to some evidence that the US was indiscriminately bombing Iraqi civilians between the end of the Gulf War and the time Sontage wrote her piece) is somehow morally equivalent to wiping out a couple of office buildings full of civilians.
Oh, and you also dodge Sontag’s crazy assertion that courage is “a morally neutral virtue.” Does anyone else see courage as morally neutral? I’ve never, ever heard the word used in anything but an extremely positive fashion. I mean, come on. Who the fuck would find the notion of “courageous mass murder” even remotely palatable? If Sontag is correct, though, I eagerly await references to Hitler’s courageous extermination of the jews, or Jack the Ripper’s courageous vivisection of prostitutes.
I’m actually shocked that anyone could defend that screed. Not so much for the way that it betrays America or whatever, but for how Sontag shows absolutely no recognition for the 9/11 victims. In her self-righteous fury, and absolute glee at seeing the US get what she feels that it deserves, Sontag ignores the 3,000 civilian casualties. Well, it’s either that, or Sontag feels that this is proper eye-for-an-eye justice, and that 3,000 dead innocents in America is a good start at balancing the ledger for the Iraqis killed by American bombs over the previous decade.
Either way, it’s an absolutely stomach-turning moral viewpoint. I’m very glad that this woman is dead. I just wish that the obit writers had given her a more appropriate send-off.
Yes, I would say that any armed person who murders an unarmed civilian is a coward.
Then you’re making up your own definitions, I guess. Knock yourself out.
including all the neat implications that “America” deserved 9/11.
Show me where she says anything like that. Good lord.
Does anyone else see courage as morally neutral?
I’d imagine some of the SS were pretty courageous.
Jason, you’re even stupider than you display here on a daily basis if you can’t see Sontag’s implication that America deserved 9/11 because of bombing Iraq. Here are the first three paragraphs of her article, unedited, unchanged:
The disconnect between last Tuesday’s monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a “cowardly” attack on “civilization” or “liberty” or “humanity” or “the free world” but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed super-power, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?
How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq?
And if the word “cowardly” is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday’s slaughter, they were not cowards.
Come on. Sontag begins by talking about how the attacks were a response to American “alliances and actions.” That obviously means the alliances with Israel and Arab dictators and the bombing of Iraq and the continuation of the Iraqi trade embargo. Then, in case you didn’t get the Iraqi reference, Sontag directly refers to it in paragraph two, specificly mentioning bombing. Finally, she speaks about how those who commit such bombings are the real cowards, and that anyone who dares to respond to such attacks are courageous.
That’s pretty much an A-B-C argument. No, Sontag doesn’t specifically say “America deserved it!” but the beginning of the article pretty clearly lays out her thesis, and she spends the remainder of the piece hammering America while never once criticizing the 9/11 attacks. The whole thing is one long, reprehensible “I told you so, America!” It’s just another example of this rotten bitch’s drive to prove herself right at all costs, even over the bodies of 3,000 people.
I really hope that last line is a joke. But just in case – do you seriously believe that the word “courageous” could apply to a soldier in the SS? If so, well, I think you’ve truly gone off the deep end.
So the 9/11 terrorists committed suicide because American TV pisses them off? They hate our fast food cuisine?
Seriously, the jingoism of decrying such attacks as assaults against our way of life while blithely ignoring the fact that many, if not most, Americans are woefully uninformed when it comes to their government’s foreign policies, and the reaction to and consequences of those policies, should be the focus of our scrutiny, not Sontag’s politically incorrect diatribe.
But just in case – do you seriously believe that the word “courageous” could apply to a soldier in the SS?
Yes, because the frickin’ definition doesn’t include “has to be doing something good.” Man. It often has a positive connotation, but you’re just making up shit. Definitions of courage - OneLook
That’s pretty much an A-B-C argument.
Can you construct the formal ABC argument for me, then? I’m not seeing it, because it’s not there. Go ahead, pretend I’m a moron, I want to see this. Your logic appears to be “she’s really mean, so I’m just going to make up views to give her.”
Sure it is. You’re being willfully blind here, Jason.
As for the definition, thanks, but I know the word and its root (Latin “cor” or “heart”) pretty well, and I have never associated it with anything but an upright act. Just look at the definitions. The most common synonyms are words like gallantry and valor, not typically associated with ramming civilian airliners into buildings.
Also, the MW and other citations clearly state that “moral strength” is a key factor in a courageous act. Unless you believe that killing civilians is a morally upright action, such an action simply can’t be courageous. And to go back to the original meaning of the word, well, I don’t recall anyone ever using it to describe a killer. Yeah, that Ted Bundy showed a lot of heart tonight when he killed that coed! Nah, doesn’t work.
But anyhow, forget the definition. “Courageous” just isn’t a word that’s used to describe heinous acts, outside of Sontag and her Wacky World of Moral Relativism, where bombing Serbs is way cool but bombing Iraqis is not. Seriously, whenever you read about a daring mass murderer who killed lots of people against all odds, do you automatically think “Man, that guy was courageous”?
Actually, shit, got off topic. It’s “coward” under discussion, remember? Definitions of coward - OneLook . In a hilarious bit of circularity, Cambridge is the only one on there adds “…or one who attacks defenseless innocents,” using a quote of a President talking about terrorists. Wonder when that got added…
Sure it is. You’re being willfully blind here, Jason.
Bullshit it is. Go ahead, diagram it out. You can’t. You’re jumping from “inflammatory phrasing of factual statements” to “treason.”
where bombing Serbs is way cool but bombing Iraqis is not.
They’re exactly the same! You’ve won!
It’s amazing how often trying to explain the reason for an action is interpreted as excusing it, or presenting it as warranted. And rather sad.
It’s amazing how often trying to explain the reason for an action is interpreted as excusing it, or presenting it as warranted. And rather sad.[/quote]
Such interpretation may be warranted when explanations and rationalizations are only offered unevenly, suggesting partiality to the content of her views rather than a simple justification of extreme viewpoints in general.
It’s amazing how often trying to explain the reason for an action is interpreted as excusing it, or presenting it as warranted. And rather sad.[/quote]
Such interpretation may be warranted when explanations and rationalizations are only offered unevenly, suggesting partiality to the content of her views rather than a simple justification of extreme viewpoints in general.[/quote]
But most of the time it’s plain old fashioned jingoism.
One thing America does consistently is to think they are perfect and everyone else is in need of becoming America. Thus when anyone attacks them for any reason its always the Evil attacking the Good, always an attack on Freedom and America and the greatness encapsulated by the United States.
Logically, of course, this must be extended to Americans themselves. Why should Americans have any ability to attack America that foreigners don’t have? Answer: They shouldn’t, and won’t.
There is a solution to all of this. A solution that Sontag and many others have asked for, that gets twisted by fear into all kinds of things.
Self-righteousness, after all, is comfortable. Its never having to say you’re sorry, never having to say you’re wrong. Never having to THINK you’re wrong. The mind, the conscience, and finally the behavior, goes on Autopilot. An Autopilot of pleasure, of undiluted, impenetrable fading pleasure. One of the greatest monstrosities the world has ever seen and certainly the biggest current problem.
One of the first human reactions to fear is to pull into itself, to simplify, to not extend, to look after itself. Maintain the fear and psychosis develops, whether it be self-righteous blindness or ascetic removal.
The easiest solution (the only one I can see happening any time soon) to the culture of self-righteousness (psychosis) in the United States, is for the United States to attack itself. Self-criticism. Which, if you notice, is just what the left in the United States has been turning into. Self-critics, or “traitors” as the right would say.
“Left” and “Right” really aren’t accurate terms anymore, and I wish I had better ones. It isn’t a matter of Conservative and Liberal, anyway, although what used to be Conservatives certainly form the base of the new party of self-righteousness. The closest political entity to “party of the self-righteous” is Fascism, but human political history is so short that I doubt that’s highly accurate. The United States seems to be turning into a divide between the Self-Righteous and the Self-Critics, I’ll have to leave it at that for now.