Leonard Pitts Jr. Says it all - You don't know my people. You don't know what we're capable of. You don't know what you just started. But you're about to learn... posted by revbrian (30 comments total)
That is extraordinarily well written. Thank you for the link. posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:28 PM on September 13, 2001
Sorry, but who cares what those mass murderers thought or wanted to demonstrate?
I've always felt that trying to understand the psychology and motives of mass murderers - people who kill indiscrimately, without even knowing who they are killing - is a subtle form of solidarity.
We should waste no time trying to fathom what moved them. They are beyond humanity. Like earthquakes. Granting them the dignity of rationality and ideology is the same as attempting to interpret the meaning of lightning.
Leonard Pitts Jr. should not have demeaned himself - and us- by addressing such wastes of breath.
They should never have been born. Even the fact that they are dead is no consolation.
There are a lot of radical Islamic extremists around who wouldn't dream of taking a single life - because they are faithful to their religion. Talk to them, if you must. But do not insult the dead by engaging their killers in pseudo-conversation.
Whatever next? Writing a letter to Hitler saying "You done wrong, Adolf"?
Give us all a break, please. posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:30 PM on September 13, 2001
Miguel, you have to understand your opponent so that you can figure out what you have to do to make him stop. posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:42 PM on September 13, 2001
Yes, Steven - but an opponent presumes someone on an equal footing, engaged in a rule-based contest.
There is no opposition if there is no chance of reaction, of playing.
The guys who crashed the planes did not give us a chance to respond. They did not want to hear or be heard.
How can we understand "people" who don't care who or how many human beings they kill?
When we have no chance of reaction, no given justification or even claim of responsibility - things which normal, bloodthirsty terrorists usually give us - how can we waste time and soul addressing these...things? posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:58 PM on September 13, 2001
i fail to see how it is cowardly to fly a jumbo jet, with yourself in it, into a skyscraper. everyone says this is cowardly, i fail to make sense of such accusations. (not that i condone any of this, but...) posted by tomato at 1:07 AM on September 14, 2001
tomato-
Here are the reasons that Tuesday's hijackings and subsequent destruction are construed as cowardice:
1) The attack was unprovoked. Even if you consider it a provoked attack, it was disproportionate to whatever wrongs the US as a nation or as a set of individual peoples has committed.
2) The victims of the attack were unarmed and not in the process of doing anything to harm whoever was responsible for killing them.
3) The terrorists who "went down with the ship" were chickenshit. Suicide bombing in general is chickenshit, because the bomber then never has to answer for his crime, which lead me to point number....
4) It is also an act of utter cowardice to kill thousands of people in the name of your beliefs and then just slink back into the darkness, never claiming responsibility. If your belief that you've been wronged is so strong that you would be responsible for such a reprehensible act of utter destruction, then wouldn't you lay claim to the act? Wouldn't you want your beliefs to be heard?
Of course in this case, there is no justification, no belief, political or religious, that could even come close to this type of action. And those who committed it are cowards of the highest order. posted by eyeballkid at 1:25 AM on September 14, 2001
I think a large part of the problem is that we don't know what we are capable of either. The average American just does not know about what their country does overseas. I looked at the opinion poll that asked if people thought retaliation was warranted even if it cost innocent lives, and I could not help but reverse the situation in my head. Imagine that Bin Laden (assuming this was his work) gave such a poll to his followers: "Do we strike back at the United States, even if it means killing innocents?" I guess we know how that vote would have gone - just like our version is, with the overwhelming majority out for blood any way they can get it.
Eyeballkid - As to point 1, in what way was this disproportionate? Numbers to numbers, they have the higher death tolls by far. I am NOT saying that I condone their actions, I do not. I am not saying they were justified. Just that your point #1 is likely inaccurate.
As to your second point - that applies to both sides here.
3 and 4 I agree with, whoever did this is not standing by their actions, and that is cowardly. But I have to compare this to our policy of releasing information about our foreign policy atrocities 20 to 30 years after the damage was done. It seems the U.S. has been at least as cowardly in the past.
Again, I am not in any way claiming the terrorist acts were justified, it's just that I hope we make some changes to ourselves as well in light of this instead of focusing all our energy on the distraction of an external enemy. We will find and punish the responsible parties, and if we do not, they will eventually die anyway. Theirs is not a safe line of work. However, my future grandchildren will still be living in the U.S.A., and I want that to be an even better place for them to live than it is for me today. posted by Nothing at 2:04 AM on September 14, 2001
Miguel,
Point taken. These people had no interest in anything but what they set out to do on Tuesday, and they're not worthy of any sort of dialog at all. They offer no justification, as you say, and not even a claim of organized responsibility because they are, as eyeball says, chickenshit cowards (well, okay, the epithet is mine).
With regard to Pitts's article, though, I think that to disparage the construction of the piece ("questioning the monster," so to speak) is to miss a couple of larger points:
1) Pitts, too, clearly doesn't give a rat's patootie for what these monsters wanted, but uses this questioning style in order to emphasize the fact that there was no point to the loss of life on Tuesday, and
2) Pitts's main objective, I believe, was to inspire Americans to pull together, as many of us already are and as all of us ought. I also think he is trying to focus the anger that we feel, and help to reassure us that American ideals are not about to wither and die. posted by Bixby23 at 2:17 AM on September 14, 2001
Hey, Nothing, there's a special meeting this weekend where everybody is going to get together and examine our true motives, critique our national history of misguided international policies, and flog ourselves over the evils we've perpetrated in the name of freedom and democracy. It's being held right in front of the Afghani Defense Department building in Kabul, Saturday morning. You're invited! Don't be late! posted by JParker at 2:17 AM on September 14, 2001
My point was simply this, JParker: That stirring editorial is 100% free of context. Its well written and moving and factually accurate, but it's time now to take a few deep breaths and rationally choose what we want to accomplish.
I can hope that if I were to find myself in front of Afghani Defense Department on Saturday that I would be just as safe as I am in my own home from my fellow Americans. If I am to believe my life would be sacrificed in what amounts to a crime of passion on a national scale, then I would have to lower my estimation of my country quite a bit. posted by Nothing at 2:56 AM on September 14, 2001
It's being held right in front of the Afghani Defense Department building in Kabul, Saturday morning. You're invited! Don't be late!
Word is a counter-demonstration is being arranged. It'll have corn-on-the-cob, booze, door prizes, scantily-clad women, and will feature Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell doo-woppin' down the street chanting:
We bad,
we mad,
you 'bout to meet the big dog.
Expect to see you there, JParker, with barbeque sauce on your shirt...
It is remarkably ignorant to ignore or dismiss the motivations of one's enemy. It is remarkably arrogant to cast any disagreement as Good versus Evil. This is merely Us versus Them, and an examination of both should be top priority, regardless of the inconvenience it may cause the jingoists. posted by Opus Dark at 3:10 AM on September 14, 2001
Miguel, eyeballkid etc, I can understand your anger, very similar to mine, but I cannot accept your ignorance and arrogance. Study, read and learn, my friends, so you will know how to answer your own questions. posted by acrobat at 3:56 AM on September 14, 2001
It is equally ignorant to cast JParker and anyone else who is not overwhelmed by reductionist self-contempt as barbecue swilling morons. It's also not a fair characterization of barbecue.
I appreciate the value of examining the full political and historical scope of these actions (in fact, I appreciate this better now because of these discussions). But you would note that studying criminal motives has not, to date, solved the problem of crime.
So "top priority," I think, would really have to go to aiding the victims and their families, mourning the loss of life, identifying and locating the guilty parties and their accomplices, and bringing them to justice before the world community.
Moving on from Opus Dark's post, I am curious if those who suggest we invited these actions by our own checkered past would tolerate such bald blame-the-victim rhetoric, say, in the case of the rape of someone they love.
Extraordinarily well written? Absolutely. Wholly complete in its analysis? Less so, I believe. The last time someone brought such monumental pain was, I believe, Vietnam, not Japan. Provoked by that level of injustice, I recall the war was suspended inconclusively at the point when the American Government sensed the public was, in fact, not prepared to bear any more suffering, pay any cost, or go to any length, in the pursuit of justice. Anyone baying for blood today would do well to consider whether the public stomach has strengthened significantly since then to provide substance to this (exquisite) rhetoric. If so, the verdict is "excellent rally cry". If not... posted by RichLyon at 5:41 AM on September 14, 2001
Asok, that list is 17 years old, and all the foreign leaders listed there have since died or been removed from power. posted by Steven Den Beste at 5:58 AM on September 14, 2001
It is equally ignorant to cast JParker and anyone else who is not overwhelmed by reductionist self-contempt as barbecue swilling morons.
True, and a fun sentence. You imply, however, that anyone whose attitude does not mirror JParker's is "overwhelmed by reductionist self-contempt". Examining the evolution, however twisted, of a metastasizing hatred which is turning chunks of our humanity into tissue samples, is not an admission of collective guilt - it is simply a prudent thing to do.
It's also not a fair characterization of barbecue.
The fact that you so conveniently coupled the terms "barbeque" and "morons" proves that my choice of meat sauce had its intended effect.
But you would note that studying criminal motives has not, to date, solved the problem of crime.
"But you would note that studying religious motives has not, to date, solved the problem of religion." (See, we can all construct snappy sentences which have little bearing on the current discussion.)
So "top priority," I think, would really have to go to aiding the victims and their families, mourning the loss of life, identifying and locating the guilty parties and their accomplices, and bringing them to justice before the world community.
Are you running for something? See cuz what I think we should do is to ignore the victims and their families, laugh at the loss of life, hide the guilty parties and their accomplices, and bring them some french fries before the world community.
Moving on from Opus Dark's post,
Well, it's about time. You've so handily debunked the whole thing, I think you've earned the right to steer the conversational bus for a while...
to...
I am curious if those who suggest we invited these actions by our own checkered past would tolerate such bald blame-the-victim rhetoric, say, in the case of the rape of someone they love.
You know, you are almost as maddening as I am. You have, in one sentence, suggested that anyone who advocates an examination of history from fresh perspective is somehow a mushy apologist ready to roll over and accept culpability, and that we'd suggest to our sister that her short skirt was "just asking for it".
I hear they still need speech writers in Washington... posted by Opus Dark at 6:24 AM on September 14, 2001
Steven Den Beste - do you have a more up to date list?
Including references? posted by asok at 7:06 AM on September 14, 2001
"Are you running for something? See cuz what I think we should do is to ignore the victims and their families, laugh at the loss of life, hide the guilty parties and their accomplices, and bring them some french fries before the world community." Opus Dark
I do not mean to suggest that you are a ghoul. I presume that your initial suggestion that examining the motivations of both "Us and Them" should be top priority was a typo. Perhaps you meant to write "*A* top priority," in which case I come close to agreeing with you (I'd still drop the "top" part).
It is natural to push aside the unbearable, bloody specificity of this act and preoccupy ourseleves with faceless rhetoric (why do you think *I'm* here?)--whether that's hawkish calls for bloody revenge, or dove-ish apologies for our perceived past sins, or the suggestion that our citizenry is too redneck stupid to be trusted to respond to this crime.
So if what I wrote sounded glib or falsely earnest to you, I'm sorry. I'm not running for anything.
Also: when you say "meat sauce," I presume you mean "a sauce served with/on meat" (which barbecue sauce is) and not "a sauce with meat in it" (which barbecue sauce is not, as I'm sure you know). Maybe we should just leave barbecue out of it.
[ this is good ] posted by phunkone at 7:37 AM on September 14, 2001
asok - exactly why would Steven Den Beste or any one else provide you with support for the agenda you seem so interested in foisting upon us here? You post an out of date listing of dictators and promoters of terror, with the US listed as a primary contributer of resources. Perhaps you'd care to clarify how much of that American money was aid to the people of those nations, rather than support of their political stances? posted by Wulfgar! at 8:00 AM on September 14, 2001
Nothing, my point was simply that now is not the time for navel-gazing. And it isn't the fact (yes, the fact) that I am consumed with hatred for the bastards that planned and executed and assisted this horror. Or the barbeque sauce on my shirt (again?!).
(1) Many of those responsible - to whatever degree - are still out there, and justice simply needs to be done.
(2) If you think that follow-up actions have not been planned, or that there won't be retaliation for whatever action we take, you're kidding yourself. The faster we act against those responsible, the more hope we have of minimizing the death toll from future attacks.
(3) We are still vulnerable. Our schools, our kids, our water supplies, our public transportation systems... Jesus. We need to stamp out this threat right now.
In my opinion, any action that is necessary to eliminate this threat is justified right now. The hijackers did not stop to contemplate whether their actions would deliver the intended message - they didn't have a message, they just wanted to hurt us. If we pause to reflect at this critical juncture, our strength becomes our weakness. Whatever conclusion you might reach in such an exercise, it won't change the fact that this attack was against innocent citizens, and it was heartless and premeditated. It also won't change the carefully considered conclusion that we need to stamp them out.
I don't really want you dead. Sorry about that knee-jerk reaction. But I do want -- and we need, in the interests of public safety and national security -- immediate action. Save the arguments about "did we reap what we have sown?" and "is American hubris to blame?" for a later date. Right now, we have a job to do. posted by JParker at 9:26 AM on September 14, 2001
Jparker,
and justice simply needs to be done
Yes, but justice needn't be done simply. And the historical debates underway here, hopefully mirrored by our leaders, should help ensure that. posted by Sinner at 10:19 AM on September 14, 2001
Jparker,
sorry for multiple posts, but a question based on this statement
The hijackers did not stop to contemplate whether their actions would deliver the intended message - they didn't have a message, they just wanted to hurt us.
No, I think they had a message. I currently live in fear of a chemical/biological/nuclear assault, which is the logical next step - and which I hope never comes. This attack, to this point was largely symbolic: the WTC, the Pentagon. That the loss of life was incidental to that is horrifying in its own right, but an awful relief to those of us worried of staggering to a quiet death on a city street. posted by Sinner at 10:24 AM on September 14, 2001
Nothing- I called the attack disproportinate because US military actions overseas come with some warning or are the result of some kind of provocation. As for the body count, what happened at the WTC happened in a matter of moments, you can't really compare that to sustained US military actions on foreign soil.
And Acrobat, making the assumption I am ignorant because I believe that the WTC attack was an overt act of cowardice makes you an idiot. posted by eyeballkid at 11:17 AM on September 14, 2001
Sinner, I disagree that there was any "message" in that attack, otherwise they would step forward and take credit for it and use the global media storm to plaster that message on every TV, radio and newspaper on the planet. Your second post said you had a question... what was it? posted by JParker at 12:22 PM on September 14, 2001
JParker,
It wasn't a question, per se, I guess. But I disagree with you that there was no message sent. It was sent - we don't know the exact messenger, or the exact message, I suppose - but it's roughly "fuck you, USA. We can get to you."
Personally, thinking like a terrorist, I think this might be too big to take credit for. Right now, the blame is semi-diffuse, and the organization behind it is somewhat cloaked in anonymity - it's a different kind of suicide to announce "hey, focus all the nationalistic energy and bloodlust on us, over here!!!"
But in much the same way as we don't know the exact message, we don't know the exact messenger. But I, for one, got the point. posted by Sinner at 1:35 PM on September 14, 2001
just in case anyone still might look at this -- Pitts's article struck a chord with quite a few people. Some 21,000 people have emailed him about it, according to the AP. posted by mattpfeff at 3:14 AM on September 20, 2001
JParker:
I agree with all your sentiments but disagree with your haste. The mass-murderers who attacked the U.S. were able to carry out their plans precisely because they took the time to think it out.
This won't be a simple or old-fashioned war. It needs to be planned so as to be absolutely effective.
Even if it takes a year or more. Besides, silence is a terrifying weapon. Specially if you've got aircraft carriers and jets scurrying round.
You're talking about a major diplomatic offensive, where already some U.S. enemies are being forced to cooperate, out of fear of reprisals.
(Thanks all round for a stimulating thread)
The impression the U.S. is giving right now seems exactly right. Nobody knows what we're going to do; which is very good strategically.
Give them all the willies, bend them every which way, and, in concert with our real allies in this world, take this through to the very end. posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:55 AM on September 20, 2001
« Older
First hand account by a muslim who worked in WTC 7...
| The charges of "lewd conduct a...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Subscribe
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:28 PM on September 13, 2001