The still-pinned professionally produced political attack by @realDonaldTrump against @IlhanMN does more to insult America and spit on the memory of 9-11 than any comment by her. https://t.co/CW6OTY1fof #IStandWithIlhanOmar
It’s the terrorists — the forces of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’eda — who intended their 9-11 attacks as a weapon, as a means of dividing and weakening the US and its society, of fomenting a war between East and West, between Christian and Muslim.
It didn’t quite work. There was war, but it was — with the help of people like (yes) George W. Bush — not framed as a war between East and West, between Christian and Muslim, but against the specific factions, forces, and individuals ostensibly behind the attacks (with an opportunistic veering off into Iraq, but that’s another story).
The rise of Donald Trump and his nationalism, his continuous invective against the Other — the Muslims, the immigrants, the exploitative allies and trading partners, the city-folk, the gays, “socialists,” the transgender, the women, the non-white, the poor — has all too easily picked up that weapon of fear and resentment and ignorance and tribalism.
And now, with a Twitter attack not just in passing, but pinned to the top of his stream, Donald Trump has picked up that 9-11 weapon that Osama bin Laden laid out for him and is using it as a weapon against someone who represents everything he stands against: a Democratic woman of power who has been democratically elected to oppose his agenda.
In doing so, Donald discredits any reverence America still feels for 9-11. He turns it into a cudgel to use against his opponent. He politicizes it, hugs it to himself like he hugs the American flag, not because it really means anything to him, but because he can weaponize the gesture against others. He diminishes that attack’s significance far more than Omar’s in-passing reference to it in an address that wasn’t even about 9-11. He makes it all about him and his political position and his nationalistic movement.
And he does it at a moment when self-avowed fans of his are being arrested for making death threats against the person he’s continuing to so prominently attack.
Yeah, Donald, I can recognize the real enemy of America here.
At “WV GOP Day,” when West Virginia Republicans “Take the Rotunda” of the statehouse for various displays, a number of folk were taken aback by a number of anti-Muslim items, including this particular display:
Now that would be shocking if it were just some random Muslim woman in a hijab being somehow conflated with the 9/11 attacks. But this photo is of Somali-American politician Ilhan Omar, a US Representative from Minnesota, one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, and the target of numerous death threats.
So, just to translate how that comes across to me: Muslims are our enemy and they attacked us on 9/11 … but we’ve clearly forgotten that because one of “them” is now in Congress.
Again, this was part of an array of displays and pamphlets and materials sponsored by the West Virginia GOP in the statehouse rotunda. This particular sign was apparently put up by the anti-Muslim group ACT for America.
In the course of the ensuing conflict in the rotunda about it, the House’s sergeant at arms, Anne Lieberman, a Republican, allegedly said that “All Muslims are terrorists.” While denying having said it, Lieberman resigned her post by the end of the day. Mike Caputo, Democratic lawmaker, allegedly injured a doorkeeper during the argument, and is being investigated.
While the GOP House Speaker later condemned “hatred in all its forms,” the comments of most of the GOP politicians were that the poster represented free speech, so they should just put it all behind them and get on with business.
Given the number of death threats Rep. Omar has received, this may be the sort of thing that pushes up against the bounds of free speech. But it’s also worth remembering that “free speech” isn’t just a rug under which to sweep stuff. The West Virginia GOP party had overall responsibility for the displays put up, and they invited the known extremists at “ACT for America” to join in the soiree. While they later denied responsibility for the display, and said that they asked to have it taken down when they “learned about it,” it’s impossible to believe that nobody from the organization didn’t walk around the rotunda first thing in the morning looking at the materials that had been put up but didn’t see it and accept it — until it became a public embarrassment.
There are a number of men at the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay who are there for their alleged roles in the 9-11 attacks. They have yet to stand trial — and, I suspect, never actually will.
The Gitmo prisoners in general — and these, specifically — are a perfect storm of military, intelligence, and judicial fail. To try them has meant head-on collisions between profound principles of what this country represents (or wants to represent) and the realities of the weird quasi-war from which they were lifted.
One former prosecutor in these cases is quoted saying, “This was not a law enforcement investigation, but an intelligence operation.” And the rules you apply to one are very different from another, in a way that makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to shift gears.
To try someone based on evidence that cannot be presented, let alone evidence extracted from them (and others) by torture, is obscene. But setting these guys free is utterly unthinkable. But letting them sit in a cell without a trial until they die of old age is grotesque.
Every step of the way, the US government — all branches, and the citizenry behind them — have been feeling their way through these cases. Every step has been painful, has distorted law and justice, whether civil or military. Every step has lowered our international reputation. Every step has cost millions of dollars. And every step will continue to do so.
I don’t have any quick, glib answers here. There are, perhaps, lessons to be learned, but that doesn’t help with these present cases, right here.
As I look around at posts and shares and tweets this morning saying, “Never forget,” I have to ask, “How could I?”
I’ve started and discarded over a dozen posts on 9-11 over the years, mostly because they got into too-tangled webs of blame and accusation and grief — grief not just over the loss of thousands of lives in the terror attacks themselves, but the hundreds of thousands, millions of lives cut short or crippled by the conflicts since, and the veering of American history (and that of the world) into something darker and more dangerous.
It’s important to remember 9-11, not just for what happened, but for what changed, and continues to change, following it. We won’t have the perspective to appreciate it fully until decades more have passed, but what we can see from within the still-ongoing blast wave is more than sufficient to mourn over.
Which misstates the case a little bit. This is the first presidential election (in the US) in which there are voters who were born after 9/11. Arguably last go-around there were voters who were too young to appreciate or understand the impact of 9/11 when it happened, or what the US was like beforehand.
[UPDATE: Math is hard. 18-year-olds this year were born (roughly) in 1998, which would have made them 3 when 9/11 occurred. Last election, there were 7yos, which is arguably also too young to remember.]
Regardless of that nitpicking, it's a worthwhile sea change. The changes in the US — the legitimization of the Security State, the demonization of Islam as the existential enemy of the US, the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars — all of these things are major differences between Then and Now. For some first-time voters, they have always been part of the background noise of the country they grew up in, something that is accepted as the status quo. The idea of meeting your party at the gate at the airport is as foreign as standing at the dock while someone's ocean liner comes in.
And don't get me started on the Cold War.
This is not to say this is a bad or a good thing, just that it is a very distinct and real thing, a shift in the gestalt of the nation, of assumptions as to what is normal and what is not, of the perception of What Things Used To Be Like.
It's weird and unsettling, but reality is often that way.
While the words "Donald Trump is right" seem to not want to pass my lips, in this case (broken clocks and all that) it's true. No, Bush did not intentionally let the 9/11 attack happen (and Trump never said that), but Bush's neocon appointees were far more focused on digging up a casus belli against Iraq and on finishing up a ballistic missile treaty than on urgent reports from the CIA and the National Security Council counter-terrrorism team that some group called "Al Qida" was planning an attack.
The argument can be made that with prompt Administration action, the attack might have been averted (and I'd love a glimpse at that particular parallel universe), but, instead, plans against Bin Laden and Al Qa'eda had only just made it to Bush's desk when the attacks took place.
If nothing else, Trump is correct in saying 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and Truman's old adage of "The Buck Stops Here" is, justly or unjustly, applicable. For Jeb! to leap to his brother's defense is understandable and even admirable, but in so doing he's violating that precept. That doesn't mean it was an impeachable offense or something that should have led to Dubya's resignation, but "mistakes were made" and responsibility has to fall on the president at the time. Wishing it away or pretending it never happened is futile and only makes the next mistake more likely.
Worse, Jeb!'s follow-up statement that what's more important is that his brother "kept America safe" after 9/11 doesn't bear close scrutiny, either: further terrorist attacks, the bungling of the Katrina relief effort, and a misguided and mishandled war on Iraq — just to start the list — say much the opposite.
So, Trump is right in his basic raising of the issue, and Jeb! (and the chattering coterie of Dubya supporters) is wrong in trying to handwave it away. It probably speaks more to Jeb! and his own candidacy than Trump, except to suggest the latter is willing to say outrageous things that offend people anywhere on the political spectrum — which may make him a good op-ed writer, but is not a qualification for president.
Unless it's 9/11. Or laws Jeb! himself signed. But not about guns. Never about guns. Never, ever, EVER about guns. Because "stuff happens."
You Don’t Pass a Pool Fencing Law After a Child Drowns, Says Jeb, Who Did Just That
“Stuff happens” was the dumbest and most unfortunate thing Jeb! Bush said Friday in reaction to the mass shooting at an Oregon community college one day earlier, but his fumbling attempt to clean up that mess was nearly as rife with dumbitude and non-fortune.
Then you probably shouldn't be running major intelligence agencies. I mean, that's part of your job, right? To consider your actions, to chart out the optimal course, to provide options and consider the disadvantages and possible concerns and blowback around each one? Even if you don't think it's your job to consider the moral or existential aspects of the policies you pursue?
Yet here's Michael Hayden saying "I was in government for ten years after 9/11, and let me tell ya, a phrase I never heard from anybody in any position of authority: 'Whatever you guys do about this terrorism threat, please, please don't overreact.' Never heard it, Brian."
Maybe they were assuming that you already knew not to overreact, like a mature adult, Michael. Or maybe they were frightened and overreacting themselves, and needed you, as a senior voice of leadership, to warn them not to overreact.
I mean, there's some overreactions we avoided, Michael. We didn't nuke Baghdad. We didn't round up and deport all Muslims in the US, or shut down the borders, or force daily loyalty oaths on everyone. We didn't call off elections or gun down everyone whose skin was too dark a tone (at least, not for anti-terror purposes). So clearly someone had some idea of what overreacting looked like.
Instead, we just started invading a couple of countries, and pervasively monitoring of phone and computer use, and torturing folk we picked up here and there (and locked away offshore or in other, helpful countries) in hopes that they might give us useful intelligence that was worth the cost of what we were doing. Clearly someone didn't consider those things overreactions.
Or maybe it's just bullshit excuse-making, and "Nobody told us not to" is the "I was just following orders" of the 21st Century. Worse, in some ways, because it abrogates even the responsibility of obeying authority.
"Fortunately" in that I'm glad, amidst the other tragedies of the day, there was no reason for Lt. Penney's name to be known and remembered at the time. But it's still a moving story.
With all the maudlin remembrances of 9/11 yesterday, here's one story about it that's never been told before. Fortunately, she didn't have to do what she set out to do, but it's amazing that she never questioned her need to do it.
F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11
Late in the morning of the Tuesday that changed everything, Lt. Heather “Lucky” Penney was on a runway at Andrews Air Force Base and ready to fly. She had her hand on the throttle of an F…
Because when you live all the time in fear, you do stupid things. And other people can and will make use of your fear, and not necessarily to your benefit.
I mean, heck, think of our cinema and fear. Think of that frightened person up on the screen, being pursued by Something Awful. We feel their fear, but we're also shouting at them for all the stupid things they're doing — running like a lunatic, dropping their flashlight, going back into the haunted house they were warned about, backing up into the shadows, arguing loudly over trivialities, splitting the party, tripping over their feet or other obstacles, whatever … and about how the Something Awful takes advantage of those bad, bad, fear-driven decisions.
Sometimes that's us. And sometimes that fearful flight can last for eleven years or more …
9/11 for me created in me a sense of fear and anxiety. F'rex: I was afraid of flying for years after. Okay before and now. But then: afraid.
Thing is, that's of course the aim of terrorism. But what nobody really tells you is that it's also the aim, in part, of the government.
This became clear recently when flying out of PHL airport, where before security they play a video that literally evokes the events of 9/11. Because, hey, if there's one thing that'll get me to submit to a violation of my human rights by the TSA, it's trying to drum up that fear.
9/11 taught me a lot about fear. And over time, it taught me that we have to find a way to operate without it.
Because fear trumps wisdom, logic, science, common sense, love, all the good stuff. Fear will fuck you up, stop you from taking chances.
I mean, listen, fear is fine if you're being chased by a fucking mountain lion or something. I'm just saying to let fear know its place.
Eleven years on. It's still a horrifying spectacle — planes slamming into the Twin Towers, flame and smoke and rubble and dust, the scars on the Pentagon, a field in the countryside …
All those awful images.
And what's followed hasn't been very nice, either. A war in Afghanistan. A war in Iraq. A war on "Terrorism." A national security state, both theatrical and sinister. Shoes and belts off at the airport, and pat-downs of diapers and colostomy bags. Renditions. Prison camps. "Enhanced interrogation." Dismissal of Habeas corpus and other rights. Killings of numerous AQ "Number 2" Men. Killing of OBL himself. Drone attacks.
We can't ever forget 9/11, nor should we. What we need to consider is what that memory drives us to do. How much we act out of fear vs. reason. How much we consider the consequences of our actions at home and abroad. How much we realize that there may be no good answers and no perfect safety, and decide what we're still willing to do about it. And what to do with all those djinnis we've already let out of their bottles.
9/11 will be considered one of the defining moments of this century and this nation's history, not for what it was, but for what it scared us into doing.
As I write this, news outlets are reporting (with ghastly pictures) that two planes have run into the World Trade Center. Given that each plane hit a separate tower, my initial assumption is that this was a deliberate terrorist act.
In an free and open society, there is no such thing as perfect safety.
Damn their eyes, and damn those who overreact to this.
And here we are, a decade later. One war, possibly justified, poorly planned. Another, long-planned, poorly justified, just as poorly planned. An economy in shambles at least in part due to that. Some of the bad guys who planned this dead. Many, many more arisen in their place. An ever-growing security apparatus in place where government agencies watch us with little to no oversight. Air travel is more likely A few brief moments of world support and sympathy squandered, along with any perception of moral high ground, with torture and renditions and black prisons now not only open secrets, but defended as a patriotic and moral imperative.
Part of me wants to say that the 9/11 attacks were, though tragic, not something we should be obsessing about. How long did we continue to mourn and commemorate, nationally, Pearl Harbor, the Maine, or the Jonestown Flood, or the Galveston Hurricane, or the Battle of the Kasserine Pass, or the San Francisco Earthquake, or the Chicago Fire? We’ve suffered horrible disasters before. We’ve suffered attacks, and defeats. And we mourn, and we survive, and we come back, and we do better.
And maybe that’s the difference here, and why we do need to keep talking about 9/11. Because something really awful happened that day — something beyond the awful death and destruction in NYC and Arlington and Pennsylvania.
We changed. We changed ourselves, and we let others change us, take control and advantage of the attacks. We let ourselves become a nation where waterboarding is no longer torture and off-limits. Where we take off our shoes to get through security, then watch a little kid get groped. Where we don’t mind that the government can listen to our phone calls, check out our library check-0ut lists, or pretty much anything they want, without a warrant, or (if there is a warrant) without your knowing it happened, just because “national security” or “terror!” is mentioned. Where we’re so phobic about a world religion that makes up 0.6% of our population that people are willing to argue with a straight face that Those People shouldn’t be allowed to build any more houses of worship here because they’re not really a religion. Where we spend so much money on “off-budget” wars that, hey, surprise, we don’t have the money (or aren’t willing to raise it) to restore a collapsed economy, extend unemployment benefits, rebuild our bridges, or fly into space.
So there is reason to mourn, and remember, and be resolved to survive, and to do better.
It’s just not the one you’ll find talked about on the mainstream media and the talk shows.
I don’t plan on posting a lot about 9/11 on its 10th anniversary, but this caught my ear.
Raw 9-11 ATC audio recordings from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and American Airlines from the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The recordings, some of which have been published previously, are being released in a multimedia report put together originally to be part of the Sept. 11 Commission’s 2004 report.
It’s a weird combo of alarm, confusion, and utter mundanity as events unfold. While it’s easy to criticize who did what and when, I keep picturing myself on those phones or mics, trying to understand what’s going, figuring out to pass what info to, etc.
Nor is it something that, I think, lends it self to a lot of straightforward training and procedures. “Oh, well, they should have known what to do when X happened and who to notify” is easy to say, but a lot more difficult to put into place with every thing that could happen at any time.
Bryan, ¿Que pasa? It’s been an age (or nearly three weeks) since I last called you out as a dolt. I was beginning to wonder if you’d lost that old Bryan Fischer zaniness …
But, with the 10th Anniversary of 9/11 coming up, I should have known you’d soon be on the War-on-Terror-Path. And since I don’t think you’ve been able to link that terror attack on Teh Gayz, Mormons, Native Americans, or Illegal Mexicans, it’s inevitable that you’ll be gunning for Those Evil Muslims instead.
And here we go.
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has rightly come under withering criticism for banning all clergy and all prayer at this year’s 9/11 commemoration ceremony.
Withering. Or, at least, loud from a certain segment of the studio audience. To wit, you and your wacky conservative Christian element.
It is inexcusable for the mayor to ban prayer at a solemn event of this magnitude, a tragedy that deeply affected all Americans.
Yes. All Americans. Of every race, color, and creed.
And, actually, it affected a lot of folks from overseas, too, 372 foreign nationals from 70 other countries. Let’s not forget that 12% of the casualty list.
Of course, Bloomberg isn’t doing anything all that weird here, let alone “inexcusable.” He’s not banning prayer — which, of course, he cannot do. What he’s doing is, for the city’s official Ground Zero ceremony, simply not inviting any specific clergy or prayerful invocations to the event. Which is in keeping with what the city has done in previous years, and seems entirely appropriate.
“The ceremony was designed in coordination with 9/11 families with a mixture of readings that are spiritual, historical and personal in nature,” Evelyn Erskine, a spokeswoman for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said in an e-mail to CNN.
“It has been widely supported for the past 10 years and rather than have disagreements over which religious leaders participate we would like to keep the focus of our commemoration ceremony on the family members of those who died.”
[…] There have been 10 ceremonies at ground zero in New York to pause and remember the events of 9/11, one six months after the attack and on September 11 each following year. Spirituality and religion have been reserved for the moments of silence in those events.In past ceremonies, four moments of silence were observed to mark when each tower was struck and when each tower fell. For this year’s ceremony, organizers added two additional moments of silence to recognize the strike on the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
“This year’s six moments of silence allow every individual a time for personal and religious introspection,” Erskine said.
As they see fit. And it’s not like there won’t be prayerful goings-on in New York City around the anniversary.
Throughout the city there will be other prayer events leading up to September 11. In particular, the New York Police Department will be hosting its own ceremony, which will include prayers, at Lincoln Center on September 8.The event is scheduled to include Rabbi Alvin Kass, the chief of chaplains for the NYPD; Cardinal Edward Egan, the Archbishop emeritus of New York; and the mayor.
But silent prayer or reflection isn’t enough, right, Bryan? If you’re not out there on the street corner praying up a storm, you’re just not doing it right, right, Bryan?
The faith of millions of Americans in God sustained them on that day and the days that followed, and churches were packed the Sunday following 9/11 with people looking to their pastors for spiritual comfort and guidance.
As were the synogogues. And the Muslim temples. I suspect Buddhists and Hindus were looking for spiritual comfort and guidance, too.
Of course, let’s not overstate things. It’s not like those Americans without a belief in God were committing suicide out of despair. And it’s not like those who do have a faith, but don’t look to a specific pastoral authority figure to tell them what it’s all about, were jumping off of bridges.
But I digress …
So why would Mayor Bloomberg stick his thumb in the eye of every believing American?
Really? I’m a believer, Bryan. I don’t feel like the mayor is attacking me.
His ban contravenes all of American history, in which political leaders have persistently turned to prayer in moments of crisis, beginning with the first session of the Continental Congress that gave us the Declaration of Independence. His ban on prayer is both misguided and politically stupid. Why would he do it?
Maybe because he hasn’t done so in the past, and because he doesn’t feel the need to do so now. Remarkably enough, Bryan, a lot of folks don’t feel compelled to invoke Jesus at every public ceremony.
But that’s not what really gets your goat here, Bryan, is it?
Here’s my suggestion. Multiculturalism has so infected Mayor Bloomberg’s view of America that if he allowed anybody to pray he would feel compelled to include a Muslim imam on the platform, praying a Muslim prayer and invoking the Muslim god at whose direction the 9/11 hijackers killed 3000 Americans in cold blood.
Remarkably enough, the Evil Muslim Terrorists didn't figure out a way to not kill all the Innocent Muslim Civilians who were in the towers. Silly Muslim Conspiracy!
Here’s a stunning, startling factoid for you, Bryan. There were Muslims who died on 9/11. And I’m not talking about the terrorists. There were Muslims who were visiting this country. And American Muslims, too.
Indeed, among the many victims of 9/11 were several dozen innocent Muslims, ranging in age from their late 60s to a couple’s unborn child. Six of these victims were Muslim women, including one who was 7 months pregnant. Many were stockbrokers or restaurant workers, earning a living to care for their families. There were converts and immigrants, hailing from over a dozen different countries and the U.S. There were heroes: a NYPD cadet and a Marriott hotel worker, who sacrificed their lives attempting to rescue others. The Muslim victims were parents to over 30 children, who were left orphaned without one or both of their parents.
You can find more about some of the Muslim victims of 9/11 here.
Yeah, I know — the whole idea of Muslims being Americans, or Americans being Muslims, is enough to make your head explode, Bryan. But they’re real. They, and their families, suffered. Indeed, a reasonable person might argue that their families’ suffering was three-fold: the deaths of their loved ones … the idea that the crime was perpetrated by those who claimed to be of the same religion as they … and that dolts like you, Bryan, paint them with the same Islamicist brush as you paint the terrorists who did this deed.
So, yes, Bryan, it would be fitting for a Muslim imam to say a prayer at 9/11, if you were trying to make sure that all the victims were represented.
He knows the American people would never stand for that. But if he held the ceremony and allowed only Christian pastors and Jewish rabbis to pray, he’d get hammered by secular fundamentalists, muliticulturalists and Muslim advocates for playing favorites. Better, he thought, to outrage the vast majority of Christians who believe in Jesus than to offend his tiny, fringe-dwelling winger-left fan club. So his bottom line apparently is this: If Muslims can’t pray, nobody gets to pray.
There’s a glimmer of truth here, Bryan. Just a glimmer.
Seems crazy, Bryan, but not everything is about you(r religion).
Yes, there were many faiths among those who died. Probably (self-labeled) Christians were in the majority. And Jews. But the 41 dead from India … the 24 with Japan … the 3 from China … the 28 from South Korea … they probably weren’t all Christian and Jewish. Do they not get some sort of religious representation in your proposed Jesus-fest?
(The Jews are in a funny position here, since you call them out specifically, Bryan, but then talk about the outrage of Christians only … which calls to mind how your own organization, the AFA, just mentioned how Jews don’t worship the same deity as Christians.)
Indeed, if we assume the American nationals who perished in 9/11 were made up of the same proportion of religious traditions as the general population, then of the 2,669 Americans who died … … 2,095 were of various Christian denominations (assuming you’re willing to consider Catholics and Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian … which I never assume, Bryan), 45 were Jewish, 19 were Buddhist, 11 were Hindu, and 483 were unaffiliated, of other faiths, or declined to identify themselves.
So all of those would be properly represented by some Christian (and, perforce, Jewish) religious leaders? Really?
So, yes … if you have respect for the faith of the victims, and their families, then if the Muslims (and Buddhists, and Hindus, and everyone else) don’t get a chance to express their faith, then nobody should. Or, through several moments of silence and contemplation, everyone does get that opportunity.
Or let me put it another way, Bryan. Let’s say that there’s a horrible terrorist attack on one of those fancy uber-tall buildings in Qatar or Bahrain or Saudi. And 3,000-odd people die. And, of those, let’s say that 32 were Christians — foreign workers, visiting executives, even a few native Christians. How would you feel about the Saudi government sponsoring a memorial event in which only the nation’s Muslim imams said prayers, consecrating this holy event to the peace of Allah, praying that Allah would look with kindness on the souls of those who had perished, and would greet them with joy and peace?
I suspect you’d be pretty outraged.
I also suspect you don’t see the irony here, Bryan.
As an aside, the mayor’s bloviation about the government not playing favorites when it comes to religion is just bilge. He’s clearly playing favorites, and his favoritism is heavily stacked toward Muslims.
Right. Because, as a politician, he’d certainly be seeking to favor a 1-odd percent of the electoral public.
He is vigorously defending the building of the offensive Ground Zero mosque while his administration at the same time is doing everything in its power to keep the Orthodox church that was destroyed on 9/11 from being rebuilt.
Oh, Christ, this, again?
A mosque and social center blocks away and out of sight of Ground Zero is somehow some sort of offensive “Victory Mosque,” according to your own twisted paranoia about Islam.
Meanwhile, the Orthodox church of St Nicholas — which Bloomberg has supported — remainstiedup in negotiations between the church and the Port Authority about whether to swap the old site (under which some sort of bomb-checking facility is to be built) with a new site, and with what sort of subsidy. Nobody at the Evil Victory Mosque, at least, is asking for a taxpayer subsidy for their rebuilding a much larger facility than they had before.
In other words, there’s no Nefarious Plot against Christianity here, Bryan. Really. Sit down and take a few deep breaths.
But there is no cultural, historical or constitutional reason why clergy participation on 9/11 should not be reserved for Christians and Jews.
Aside from the whole There were people who died who were neither Christian nor Jewish thing. And look, Bryan — you’ve somehow magically gone from “We need clergy to be part of this” to “We need Christian and Jewish clergy to be part of this.” I suppose, at least, until those uppity Jews deny the Messiah another time, right?
This is for one simple reason: this nation was founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition and on faith in the God revealed in the Old and New Testaments. It has always been this God to whom Americans have turned in times of danger, and there is no reason why this God should not be the God to whom prayers are offered on 9/11.
Clearly a group that represents the rich tapestry of the modern American experience
We were also founded on a partial slave economy, a political establishment of property holders, a society dominated by men. The only people who were, who could be, part of the founding of this nation were white, landed men. So does that mean only white, landed men should be allowed to speak at the memorial?
We’ll put aside your whole zany argument you continue to regurgitate about how the nation was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation, and how the First Amendment is only for Christians (and, if they’re polite, Jews).
Bottom line, if individual Christians want to pray to their God — as they see Him (or Her) — before, during, or after 9/11, they are welcome to do so. If they want to pray in their church services about 9/11, that’s their right and prerogative.
But that’s not what you want, Bryan. You want a city affair, paid for by the taxpayers of New York City, to be a big celebration of Jesus and invocation of Jehovah — no matter who the citizenry of NYC actually believe in, individually or collectively. You think that the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Neo-Pagans, Atheists and unchurched and indifferent ought to pay for — and celebrate in — a Christian (and indifferently Jewish) prayer meeting.
Really?
No.
Muslims, meanwhile, pray to a different god.
As do, according to the AFA — who you are the official spokescritter of, and on whose site you post — the Jews. Yet, for some reason, you allow them to be a part of the Christian memorial to the 9/11 victims.
Their god, they insist, has no son.
The Jews, I believe, concur.
The God of Christians, of course, does have a Son. Paul frequently opens his epistles by making it clear that the God to whom he prays is the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 1:3), to distinguish the God of the Scriptures, the true and living God, from all the Roman gods.
Which sounds like a good, orthodox Christian standpoint. Not shared by those who aren’t Christian, but since you consider Them second-class citizens, I guess that doesn’t matter.
This God, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, is the God to whom the Founders prayed. It is this God who is the source of “the Laws of Nature” and is in fact “Nature’s God.” This God is the “Creator” who is the source of our “unalienable rights.”
They even dated the Declaration of Independence from the year of Christ’s birth, and referred to him in so doing as “our Lord.”
Dude, really? You’re using the calendar system as a proof of their Christianity? By that argument, they were also Catholics (in honor of Popes Gregory and Julian, who established the BC/AD system).
So can public officials restrict public prayers to prayers directed to the God of the Founders? Absolutely.
Absolutely … not.
Any more than they can restrict participation just to those Americans who were born in the initial 13 states.
In fact, you can’t get any more American than praying to the same God to which they appealed as the “Supreme Judge of the World.”
As Thomas Jefferson (see above) put it.
It’s a travesty that Mayor Bloomberg is so confused and clueless about America’s history, …
Maybe he’s trying to do what’s right, acceptable, and reality-based for 2011, not 1789.
… and so confused and clueless about the threat Islam poses to the West, …
E pluribus unum? Sounds like socialism to me!
Because it’s all about The Evil Muslims Out to Conquer Everyone (Unless We Conquer Them First), right? Because the 9/11 Ground Zero ceremony on its 10th Anniversary isn’t really about the victims, or their families. It’s about Us vs. Them, right? Which, ironically enough, was the philosophy of the murderous dolts who committed that heinous crime.
… that he seems to think that if everybody can’t pray, nobody gets to pray.
Because if They pray, then it will disrupt the Magic Spells caused by Us praying. Of course, Christian prayer should (I’d assume you believe) trump any Muslim prayer. Because Allah is either imaginary or a demon, but in either case is no match for Jehovah and Jesus. So what are you worried about again?
It’s time to get completely over this mindless obsession with diversity and return to the faith of our Founding Fathers. And the time to start is with this year’s 9/11 ceremony.
Because it’s all about you, Brian. And your particular interpretation of your specific denomination of your religion. And anyone who’s not part of that … well, they’re obviously Them, not Us. And that’s the unifying spirit that America, and Jesus, stand for.
I cannot find it in myself to mourn the passing of Osama Bin Ladin. He was a vile zealot who self-righteously delighted in sowing fear and death among innocents, and I am quite satisfied that he will not longer be able to do so.
But I worry a bit over all the jovial, gleeful, jingoistic celebration going on about his fittingly violent passing. It just feels … sticky, to use Lady Sally’s terms. OBL’s passing isn’t the end of a war. It may or may not be a strategic victory in the War on Terror, depending on how much you think OBL was still calling the shots. Certainly there’s a visceral feeling of justice and closure …
When the Egyptians were drowning in the Red Sea, the angels in heaven began to break forth in songs of jubilation, but the Holy One, blessed be He, silenced them: “My creatures are perishing — and ye are ready to sing!”
— The Talmud (AD 200-500)
… but I worry a bit when it all turns into spontaneous jubilation and shouts of “USA! USA!” It’s not the angels of our better natures talking (or chanting) there, nor is it a celebration of any special virtue that distinguishes our nation from others. Anyone can shoot a bullet through an enemy’s head.
What it is is tribalism, plain and simple. It’s vengeance. He hit us, we hit him back. He killed our people, we killed him. It’s seductive, because it feels so good, so certain, so hot and bloody and plain and simple and we won and he’s dead.
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
— J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973) English writer, fabulist, philologist, academic [John Ronald Reuel Tolkien] The Fellowship of the Ring, Book 1, ch. 2 “The Shadow of the Past” [Gandalf] (1954)
I don’t expect that OBL would ever have taken up knitting and philanthropy, but I don’t know that, nor do I know what else he might have done with his life, or what good might possibly have come of it. On the other hand, he reaped as he sowed, and there’s a satisfaction there, too.
But let’s not go overboard. This guy wasn’t Hitler, or Stalin, or even Mussolini. He was responsible for the deaths of thousands, but killing him doesn’t kill his cause, or mean that no more will die at the hands of al Qa’eda’s butchers. This isn’t V-E Day. It isn’t an occasion for a huge sigh of giddy national relief that the conflict is done.
Bottom line, while I’m not unhappy he’s been killed (heck, even Gandalf was known to slay enemies in battle, right?), it just doesn’t feel right to be celebrating by waving a flag and chanting about how it proves that “We’re Number One! We’re Number One!”
For decades, we have held in contempt those who actively celebrate death. When we’ve seen video footage of foreigners cheering terrorist attacks against America, we have ignored their insistence that they are celebrating merely because we have occupied their nations and killed their people. Instead, we have been rightly disgusted — not only because they are lauding the death of our innocents, but because, more fundamentally, they are celebrating death itself. That latter part had been anathema to a nation built on the presumption that life is an “unalienable right.”
But in the years since 9/11, we have begun vaguely mimicking those we say we despise, sometimes celebrating bloodshed against those we see as Bad Guys just as vigorously as our enemies celebrate bloodshed against innocent Americans they (wrongly) deem as Bad Guys. Indeed, an America that once carefully refrained from flaunting gruesome pictures of our victims for fear of engaging in ugly death euphoria now ogles pictures of Uday and Qusay’s corpses, rejoices over images of Saddam Hussein’s hanging and throws a party at news that bin Laden was shot in the head.
To paraphrase Nietzsche, when you party it up in the abyss, the abyss parties it up in you.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Al Qaeda threat involving hotels buffets ‘credible,’ report says – USATODAY.com – See, there’s an effective idea. There’s lots of nefarious things that could be done in this way, restricting services, eroding public trust … and, even better, even if nothing is actually done, it just ramps up the fear, esp. if a real food poisoning outbreak occurs. That’s why it’s called terrorism.
Ignorance comes with consequences – And those are the people most loudly proclaiming American divine exceptionalism, because they’re too tied to their comforting ignorance to actually make this country exceptional.
The Portland Press Heraldhad the nerve, the audacity, the gall to report on events the day after they happened. Many people objected. The paper apologized.
The problem wasn’t about the time lag in reporting news, specifically. While papers are struggling to deal with 24×7 news cycles, it’s still usual for a paper to focus on “what happened yesterday” vs. “what’s going to happen today” for most things.
What was a problem this time had to do with politics and the current xenophobia regarding Islam.
See, the PPH was reporting on the Friday end of Ramadan and the Eid holiday — something of some importance to the Muslim community in Portland. That was their page 1 story on Saturday. It’s possibly a little soft as a page 1 story — akin, maybe, to detailing Easter celebrations at a local cathedral — but should be equally innocuous.
Ah, but this story ran on Saturday (gasp) 9/11. And there were (gasp) no 9/11 recaps on the front page (since news about 9/11 is 9 years old and the PPH’s readers may have forgotten).
(The story does mention 9/11 in passing, in the context of local Muslims and the whole Rev. Jones story.)
This huge insult to God-Fearing, 9/11-Worshipping, White Middle America did not go unnoticed, and apparently the paper was flooded with complaints, many of which can be found in the comments:
And nine years ago, driven by their religion , members of the muslim faith killed over 3,000 peace loving citizen of the world and the USA. This was the only statement I need to know about this religion!
What’s up PPH? Look at your calender; it’s 9/11! Where is your respectful American story of the most horrific day in recent memory?! It’s been ommited.. no strike that.. TRUMPED!.. to instead show respect to the end of Ramadan…?! You Liberals have forgotten where you come from. Pathetic.
Astounding, on the anniversary of the 9-11 ATTACKS by islamic terrorists, this is what we get on the front page. Do you think that on Dec. 7th 1950 (9 years after Pearl Harbor) there were front page articles extolling how wonderful Japan was? Wake up America! We’re at war and if you’re too blind to see that some of these “peaceful” people will bury you in your politically correct graves.
When I picked up my newspaper this morning I was stunned to see this as the lead article on page one, above the fold. Today is the 9th anniversary of a cowardly, savage, barbaric attack on innocent people by a group of Islamic fanatics and our local paper chooses this to be the lead article on page one- especially on the day when they provide a separate religious section. It is nothing short of a tasteless example of irresponsible “journalism” (it’s not even close to fitting that definition). This article serves no one- Muslims, Americans, and especially those families who lost loved ones. It will only bring more resentment and divisiveness. I can’t remember seeing a more shameful article- anywhere.
what the hell were you people thinking – on 9/11 you post a pic of a bunch of moslims on there knees with there butts in our face – on 9/11 – this country is spiraling down & things like this just hurry it along – it sickins me
Now, the PPH could have argued that they were making a deliberate statement — that they were seeking to inform, not inflame. Or they could have pointed at their plans for coverage of 9/11 events on Sunday, after the events occured. Or they could have noted that it was not a one-sided controversy (quite a few comments showed up under the article to disagree with the above sentiments). They could even have taken an heroic stand and, while acknowledging that some folks were offended, that the response of so many was laced with religious and ethnic bias not worthy of Americans.
But, instead, terrified of losing more advert revenue and fleeing from the mobs, the PPH (in the person of publisher Richard Conner) issued a lengthy apology that same day.
Many saw Saturday’s front-page story and photo regarding the local observance of the end of Ramadan as offensive, particularly on the day, September 11, when our nation and the world were paying tribute to those who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks nine years ago.
We have acknowledged that we erred by at least not offering balance to the story and its prominent position on the front page.
What sort of “balance” was called for? Should there have been an article about Muslim terrorists? A column from Bryan Fischer about how Muslims are out to eat our babies? An article about Christian worshipers celebrating the Feast of Alexander Crummell?
Would the folks quoted above, or their ilk, have accepted any article about the Eid holiday and happy, peaceful, non-flag-burning Muslims on the front page of the paper on 9/11? On any day? I suspect they would have received much of the same criticism, regardless of the date or “balancing” articles.
Quoting a response made to a complainant, Conner continued:
“We are sorry you are offended by today’s front page photo and story and certainly understand your point of view. Many feel the same way. We do not offer the stock excuses you cite. We should have balanced this story with one that showed our sensitivity to today’s historic importance. You will see tomorrow that our planned coverage of today’s 9/11 events is extensive, far more so than the coverage of this event on Friday. We apologize for what may appear to be our insensitivity to the historic significance of this day. Tomorrow’s newspaper will feature extensive coverage of the commemoration of today’s events.
“Our editors believed that 3,000 persons marking the passage of a religious observance and congregating in Portland to do so was news.I believe that decision was correct but I also believe we should have handled it in a more sensitive way.”
Right. The folks complaining about how the PPH is being overly-sensitive and PCishly truckling to the Muslim community need to be treated with more sensitivity and truckling, too.
Here’s where we are in America, 2010: There is now one group of Americans whose peaceful religious observance cannot be noted by decent people, unless it is “balanced” by the mention of a vile crime committed in 2001 by people, with a perverted idea of the same religion, from the other side of the world.
This is a depressing statement about the state of dialogue in America. Nine years after 9/11, there is now a widespread belief that, for one religious group of law-abiding Americans, the boundaries of acceptable behavior are narrower than for everyone else. Yes, you have the right to worship. But it would be decent of you to do it somewhere else. Or on another day. Or in such a way that the rest of us don’t have to know about it.
Mercifully, most of the comments to the apology were ticked off about it, e.g.,
It never crossed my mind to be offended by that photo. I am so so sorry that you are apologizing for it. I think it is perfectly reasonable for the paper to print a photo about Eid on 9/11. These people and their faith had nothing whatsoever to do with the horrific attack of nine years ago. Our state needs to be more tolerant, not less. Your apology implies that it is in some way OK to connect everyday Muslims and the attackers. I abhor such thinking.
It is ridiculous to feel the need apologize for making a reasoned and sensible decision . The ONLY error was to believe that all of your readers are reasonable people. They are not. There are bigots and fools reading your paper. It is too bad you have decided that you must bow down to their ignorance.
Though there were plenty of people still swinging around their torches and pitchforks.
I for one do not accept the apology. Were these reporters living on another planet? I think it was insensative. Because of these people we now cannot celebrate the Christmas Holiday in our schools. I beleive in the free practice of your religion but it is being done at the expense of mine.
EVERY SINGLE TERRORIST on those planes nine years ago was a MUSLIM EXTREMIST. Sorry, you can’t just wipe it away by saying “they had nothing to do with the attack”. Their MUSLIM FAITH had EVERYTHING to do with their actions, and the response by moderate Muslims has NEVER been adequate since that day.
And so it goes.
“Freedom of the press is a flaming sword! Use it justly… hold it high … guard it well.” Of course, the guy who said that was a fictional character, but Mr Conner might consider it nevertheless.
Today is 11 September, the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attack on the US, which killed thousands at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.
I’ve traditionally posted back to pictures of the day, but I’m going to eschew that this time around.
One thing I’ve noticed over time since the event is that the meaning of 9/11 has changed. Immediately, of course, it was the attack, and the aftermath. Bravery. Sacrifice. Grief. Unity. Death. And, of course, anger.
That began to change almost immediately. 9/11 became an impetus for action — in Afghanistan, then Iraq. And at home, as security ramped up. Then up. Then up some more.
And where are we today?
Grief is still there. Looking at the pictures of that day can still move.
But 9/11 has been used so much, for so many reasons in the past nine years, it’s become, sadly, more of a catch-phrase that various people use to various ends, rather than an event of its own. The result blurs the cause.
So now 9/11 becomes a club to justify ever-more-intrusive security at our borders and within them. Search your laptop or cell phone? Gotta — remember 9/11. Ignore habeas corpus? We gotta — don’t want another 9/11. Let the government operate in secret, just because it says it needs to do something in secret? Well, they’re protecting us from another 9/11.
And 9/11 becomes now a social club. After the event, to its credit, the Bush Administration made it clear that we were not “at war” with Muslims (at least in our country, but also, ostensibly, with “moderate” Islamic regimes). But from a social standpoint, that’s now fallen to the punditry wayside. Now Muslims are the new Darkskinned People Who Speak Funny Who Are Seeking To Destroy Our Way Of Life (Mexicans remain on the list; Italians, I think you’re finally off the hook).
So 9/11 becomes an excuse to protest an Islamic Center that’s “too close” to the “hallowed ground” of the WTC (never mind all the other non-hallowed buildings there — those aren’t Pro-Religion-That-Was-Used-By-Terrorists-As-An-Excuse buildings. And never mind that the place is blocks away — it’s not enough blocks. And it wouldn’t make any difference anyway, because even mosques hundreds and thousands of miles away are being protested. Because, y’know … Islam! Muslims! They’re all out to kill us in our sleep! Just like 9/11!
(And, of course, there’s That President, who’s really One of Those, and who’s probably plotting another 9/11 even as we speak, because, y’know, he’s really One of Those.)
Meanwhile, 9/11 has gone from a date of solemnity and recollection, to a date when (mostly) conservative pundits and talking heads and political figures and rodeo cowboys “coincidentally” hold events to rally up the base and gin up the troops and turn out the supporters and gather up the moolah.
(How were folks reacting, I wonder, in December 1950? Or, for that matter, February 1907?)
So now it feels like 9/11 is less about what happened, or even dealing with the individuals responsible, and more about how people are using it. Or abusing it. Or invoking it for their own interests.
So I’ll just virtually lower the the flag to half-mast today, eschew the more public display and directed rallies, and remember (and resolve) in my own way. With friends. And some beer.
