Sept. 11 & Other Tragedies: Your leaders are not sad if you die

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**BrassScorpion**

This is harsh, but deservedly so and well written. The use of the word "opportunity" is more than sad in the three examples below.

This excerpt sums it up perfectly, the whole article is farther below if you wish to read it.

For normal people, it's an unmitigated tragedy when their fellow citizens are killed in terrorist attacks or wars. Normal people cry, become afraid, and think of children who now have no parents and parents who now have no children.

For our would-be "leaders," however – in every country – the situation is different. Of course, they pretend to feel the same as normal people. They give teary-eyed speeches about sorrow and suffering.

And yet, behind their tears, there seems to be something else. When they think no one is looking, you glimpse another expression flitting across their face. You think it couldn't be. But – yes, incredibly enough, they're smiling. Because before the bodies are cold, before the mothers have stopped shrieking, our leaders are thinking:

This is really a FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY.

It's an opportunity for them to do whatever they wanted to do before, but couldn't get away with. It's an opportunity for them to smear anyone who criticizes them as disloyal. It's an opportunity for them to become much more powerful than they ever could be in peacetime. Leaders love war. That's why there's so much of it.

Today Is the Eleventh Anniversary of an Enormous Opportunity
September 11th, 2012 7:07 PM

By Jon Schwarz

Today, September 11, 2012, is a good time for a short quiz.

Here are the questions:

1. What is this?

What did you answer? Did you say "That's the last moments of the lives of thousands of people"? Or "That's a hideous act of mass murder"? Or "That's the beginning of a lifetime of suffering for everyone who loved someone who died at the World Trade Center"?

Wrong! The right answer is: that is an OPPORTUNITY, an ENORMOUS OPPORTUNITY:

"Through my tears I see opportunity." – George Bush, September 20, 2001

"If the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11 bookend a major shift in international politics, then this is a period not just of grave danger, but of enormous opportunity. Before the clay is dry again, America and our friends and our allies must move decisively to take advantage of these new opportunities." – Condoleezza Rice, April 29, 2002

2. What is this?

This question is a little harder. Some people might answer, "That's the brutal Al Qaeda bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya on November 28, 2002 aimed at Israeli tourists." Others might say, "It's the place where terrorists murdered 13 people, including ten Kenyans and Israeli brothers Noy and Dvir Anter, ages 12 and 13." Or, "That's the place where, CNN reported, 'screaming children covered in blood searched desperately for their parents amid the wreckage.'"

They would also be wrong. The correct answer is, that is a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY:

"Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meeting with ministry staff in the aftermath of the Kenya attacks, said that the incidents had presented Israel with a 'golden opportunity' to strengthen its strategic ties with the United States and other Western countries."

3. What is this?

Some might guess, "That's a young Iraqi girl covered in the blood of her parents, who'd just been killed by U.S. soldiers terrified of car bombers." Or, "Something that every American should be atoning for until the day we die."

But again, that would be wrong. The right answer is, that's a picture of yet another GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY:

"Targeting America in Iraq in terms of economy and losses in life is a golden and unique opportunity. Do not waste it only to regret it later." – Osama bin Laden, December, 2004

• • • • •

Probably the point here is clear. But I'll go ahead and spell it out.

For normal people, it's an unmitigated tragedy when their fellow citizens are killed in terrorist attacks or wars. Normal people cry, become afraid, and think of children who now have no parents and parents who now have no children.

For our would-be "leaders," however – in every country – the situation is different. Of course, they pretend to feel the same as normal people. They give teary-eyed speeches about sorrow and suffering.

And yet, behind their tears, there seems to be something else. When they think no one is looking, you glimpse another expression flitting across their face. You think it couldn't be. But – yes, incredibly enough, they're smiling. Because before the bodies are cold, before the mothers have stopped shrieking, our leaders are thinking:

This is really a FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY.

And for them it is. It's an opportunity for them to do whatever they wanted to do before, but couldn't get away with. It's an opportunity for them to smear anyone who criticizes them as disloyal. It's an opportunity for them to become much more powerful than they ever could be in peacetime. Leaders love war. That's why there's so much of it.

It's understandably hard for normal people to come to terms with this. It's scary to believe your leaders may secretly be, uh, not so sad if you die. But all you have to do is listen to them, and they'll tell you.

Can we change this? Maybe. But the first step in changing reality is facing it, no matter how ugly and frightening it is.

Happy September 11th.

**Ahtman**

So much for one day of quiet introspection and unity. Couldn't wait till tomorrow to pour gasoline on the fire?

**curran12**

Ahtman wrote:
So much for one day of quiet introspection and unity. Couldn't wait till tomorrow to pour gasoline on the fire?

This.

**Alfndrate**

curran12 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
So much for one day of quiet introspection and unity. Couldn't wait till tomorrow to pour gasoline on the fire?

This.

Thirded...

I don't disagree with the article, wartime can make or break a leader and how people view them. Look at how everyone was right after Sept. 11th, we were gung-ho and ready and willing to go and take care of whoever caused these attacks, years later, the view has changed. Bush, who was popular at the outset of our military actions was 'popular' enough during the time it took us to go into Afganistan, Iraq, etc... but now he's remembered as a man that dragged us into an unpopular war that we're still trying to figure out 10+ years later.

I disagree with the OP's posting history, and the date at which this article is posted.

**Polonius**

At this point, this is the one day we even think about the effects of the War of Terror, and our role in it.

Introspection isn't really useful if it's just thinking about what you're comfortable with.

**Ahtman**

Polonius wrote:
At this point, this is the one day we even think about the effects of the War of Terror, and our role in it.

I don't know about all that, unless you mean nationally, then I would probably agree.

Polonius wrote:
Introspection isn't really useful if it's just thinking about what you're comfortable with.

I agree with that as well, but my point was more about making a purposefully incendiary post on a day that many, even if it is just the one day of the year they do so, think about the loss of life on that day and all the following shenanigan that followed. I think we hold on to it a little to tightly and planned on avoiding on commenting on any 9/11 but this was just a bridge to far I suppose.

A few days ago someone said that liberals like it when there are mass shootings, and now we have someone saying that, essentially, conservatives like it when planes are flown into buildings. I'm just a bit fed up with the bs from both sides at the moment I suppose.

**Dreadclaw69**

BrassScorpion wrote:
This is harsh, but deservedly so and well written. The use of the word "opportunity" is more than sad in the three examples below.

This excerpt sums it up perfectly, the whole article is farther below if you wish to read it.

For normal people, it's an unmitigated tragedy when their fellow citizens are killed in terrorist attacks or wars. Normal people cry, become afraid, and think of children who now have no parents and parents who now have no children.

For our would-be "leaders," however – in every country – the situation is different. Of course, they pretend to feel the same as normal people. They give teary-eyed speeches about sorrow and suffering.

And yet, behind their tears, there seems to be something else. When they think no one is looking, you glimpse another expression flitting across their face. You think it couldn't be. But – yes, incredibly enough, they're smiling. Because before the bodies are cold, before the mothers have stopped shrieking, our leaders are thinking:

This is really a FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY.

It's an opportunity for them to do whatever they wanted to do before, but couldn't get away with. It's an opportunity for them to smear anyone who criticizes them as disloyal. It's an opportunity for them to become much more powerful than they ever could be in peacetime. Leaders love war. That's why there's so much of it.

You quote an article lambasting world leaders taking opportunity in times of tragedy, yet you yourself use the anniversary of a tragedy to push your own agenda and turn a day of quiet remembrance into political point scoring. Absolutely disgusting.

**Manchu**

What's all this about "quiet remembering"? I'm very suspicious about what is meant by "quiet" here. If anything, it should be a day of discussion.

**Seaward**

Ahtman wrote:
A few days ago someone said that liberals like it when there are mass shootings, and now we have someone saying that, essentially, conservatives like it when planes are flown into buildings. I'm just a bit fed up with the bs from both sides at the moment I suppose.

But it's Brass Scorpion. Who gives a gak? Let the dude ramble and spout badly-written articles from the latest whackadoo moon unit sites, I say.

**Dreadclaw69**

Manchu wrote:
What's all this about "quiet remembering"? I'm very suspicious about what is meant by "quiet" here. If anything, it should be a day of discussion.

Seeing as you asked - Quiet as in remembering all those who lost their lives. Not erecting a platform for cackhanded political discussion on an anniversary by a community member notorious for posting incendiary topics that he rarely contributes anything to in a meaningful way.

**Manchu**

The problem with the article is not that it's incendiary. The problem is that it was written with someone who has the insight (and smug self-congratulatory righteousness) of a moody teenager reading too much Nietzsche.

**Dreadclaw69**

Seaward wrote:
But it's Brass Scorpion. Who gives a gak? Let the dude ramble and spout badly-written articles from the latest whackadoo moon unit sites, I say.

You mean quoting from articles posted last year on tinyrevolution.com, and michaelmoore.com might be suspicious?

**Manchu**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Quiet as in remembering all those who lost their lives.

You don't require "quiet" to remember anyone. No one was quiet the day it happened or in the following weeks. That's worth remembering.

**Dreadclaw69**

Manchu wrote:
The problem with the article is not that it's incendiary. The problem is that it was written with someone who has the insight (and smug self-congratulatory righteousness) of a moody teenager reading too much Nietzsche.

The problem is that the article was posted last year, and someone left it appropriate to repost it here a year later on the anniversary of a horrible crime for a reaction which is plain to see above.

**Ahtman**

Manchu wrote:
What's all this about "quiet remembering"? I'm very suspicious about what is meant by "quiet" here. If anything, it should be a day of discussion.

That was badly worded on my part, and it should be discussed, but OP got under my skin.

**Manchu**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The problem is that the article was posted last year

Not really. To the extent that it was relevant last year, and I'm not saying it was, it's just as relevant this year. This message doesn't really have an expiration date.

**Polonius**

Ahtman wrote:
Polonius wrote:
At this point, this is the one day we even think about the effects of the War of Terror, and our role in it.

I don't know about all that, unless you mean nationally, then I would probably agree.

Polonius wrote:
Introspection isn't really useful if it's just thinking about what you're comfortable with.

I agree with that as well, but my point was more about making a purposefully incendiary post on a day that many, even if it is just the one day of the year they do so, think about the loss of life on that day and all the following shenanigan that followed. I think we hold on to it a little to tightly and planned on avoiding on commenting on any 9/11 but this was just a bridge to far I suppose.

A few days ago someone said that liberals like it when there are mass shootings, and now we have someone saying that, essentially, conservatives like it when planes are flown into buildings. I'm just a bit fed up with the bs from both sides at the moment I suppose.

I dunno, maybe I didn't see the partisan aspect of it. I remember Bubba bombing kosovo and enforcing the No-fly zone, and I think of Obama and Libya/Syria, and I see leaders using tragedy to move an agenda in general.

It's been 12 years, and at this point the aftermath has been more destructive and damaing than the attacks. We've spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of american and god knows how many iraqi and afghani lives, and we've seen our notions of privacy and peace of mind become warped out of all persective.

Maybe it's because I didn't know anybody that died on 9/11, but I think most people didn't. I don't see the need to all sit quietly and think about a specific group of victims.

**Dreadclaw69**

Manchu wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Quiet as in remembering all those who lost their lives.
You don't require "quiet" to remember anyone. No one was quiet the day it happened or in the following weeks. That's worth remembering.

I remember watching the events in another country thousands of miles away as it unfolded. Yeah, people were quiet. Very quiet. Especially when we seen footage of people throwing themselves from the buildings because they were trapped. Then the towers fell.

Yeah, it got real quiet then.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
The problem is that it was written with someone who has the insight (and smug self-congratulatory righteousness) of a moody teenager reading too much Nietzsche.

Ok, we've disagreed many times in the past but that sentence there is sterling, pure sterling!

**Manchu**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yeah, it got real quiet then.

No it didn't. What actually happened is that everyone was constantly talking about it with weeks if not months of round-the-clock news coverage. Everywhere you went, everyone you met, there was talking about what this meant and what we would do and who you knew who lost someone, etc, etc, etc. It was very, very loud. And it's been loud ever since.

**Polonius**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Quiet as in remembering all those who lost their lives.
You don't require "quiet" to remember anyone. No one was quiet the day it happened or in the following weeks. That's worth remembering.

I remember watching the events in another country thousands of miles away as it unfolded. Yeah, people were quiet. Very quiet. Especially when we seen footage of people throwing themselves from the buildings because they were trapped. Then the towers fell.

Yeah, it got real quiet then.

It was quiet, and then the discussion among my friends almost immediately went to "who is getting bombed for this."

Yeah, we were cynical college kids, but even at the time we were worried about the over reaction. And that was at a time when we though the death toll was in the 10,000 range.

**Manchu**

The only thing quiet about the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was the lack of protest as we started to saber rattle ourselves and the rest of the world into a frenzy from which, as Polonius correctly described, we are still reeling.

**daedalus**

I was waking up in Spanish class, and looked at the TV, wondering who the feth flies an plane close enough to buildings to smash into one, while everyone else in the class was dead silent.

...I eventually found out later after school let out.

Still remember the massive lines of people filling up their cars with gas at the stations who had jacked up the prices to about $5.00/gallon. I still don't understand that part.

Article is 100% accurate though, if tasteless, though I suppose for it to have meaningful effect, it would have to be presented today to evoke the emotional counterresponse toward the emotional response people may already be feeling. That doesn't change the fact that almost any tragedy, accident, or difficulty is always an opportunity for someone, somewhere.

**Polonius**

I think it's well documented that people react more to a single, large event than to many small ones, which is why we are scared senselss of terrorism, but not, say, diabetes.

It's also a known phenomenon that people tend to wait until there is a concreate problem before fixing a system. History is replete with examples of leaders using tragedies to spur action. FDR wanted to enter WWII badly, but it took Pearl Harbor to really trigger the support needed.

So, the point of the article is only of use to those with no real sense of history.

However, it does remind us of the harsh truth: that no matter how fondly we remmeber the victims of 9/11, we must also remember actions carried out in their name, with our expressed or implied consent.

**Seaward**

Give peace a chance, I say. We're all children of the One Love.

**Dreadclaw69**

Manchu wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yeah, it got real quiet then.
No it didn't. What actually happened is that everyone was constantly talking about it with weeks if not months of round-the-clock news coverage. Everywhere you went, everyone you met, there was talking about what this meant and what we would do and who you knew who lost someone, etc, etc, etc. It was very, very loud. And it's been loud ever since.

When the towers fell it got quiet. But when anger and outrage replaced shock it changed.

**whembly**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yeah, it got real quiet then.
No it didn't. What actually happened is that everyone was constantly talking about it with weeks if not months of round-the-clock news coverage. Everywhere you went, everyone you met, there was talking about what this meant and what we would do and who you knew who lost someone, etc, etc, etc. It was very, very loud. And it's been loud ever since.

When the towers fell it got quiet. But when anger and outrage replaced shock it changed.

That was my read... we were all glued to the TV screen for a couple of days.

**BaronIveagh**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

When the towers fell it got quiet. But when anger and outrage replaced shock it changed.

...

Let me start off by saying that, like quite a few other people, I didn't need a TV to watch it.

Dread, I might simply state this: I don't like Brass any more than I like you. But at least he's consistent. I'm amazed you could write that post without your computer bursting into flames at your hypocrisy. After all, when crimes against humanity happen to someone else, it's not your concern if it doesn't advance your national interests, remember?

When it happens to you, however... 'anger and outrage'.

**daedalus**

C'mon kids.

**Frazzled**

How is that inconsistent? If he is an American citizen, and it happens to Americans, it is human nature to care more. Our policies impact that more as well.

Or do you weep for every child on the planet? If you say yes, unless you're Jesus, the Budha, or the Great Wiener, you're lying.