To paraphrase Groucho Marx, whatever America’s immediate reaction was to 9/11, the Guardian would be against it. (Link safe, goes to Hot Air):
Inevitably, the unity brought about by the tragedy of 9/11 proved as intense as it was fleeting. The rally around the flag was a genuine, impulsive reaction to events in a nation where patriotism is not an optional addendum to the political culture but an essential, central component of it. Having been attacked as a nation, people logically felt the need to identify as a nation.
But beyond mourning of the immediate victims’ friends and families, there was an element of narcissism to this national grief that would play out in policy and remains evident in the tone of many of today’s retrospectives. The problem, for some, was not that such a tragedy had happened but that it could have happened in America and to Americans. The ability to empathise with others who had suffered similar tragedies and the desire to prevent further such suffering proved elusive when set against the need to avenge the attacks. It was as though Americans were unique in their ability to feel pain and the deaths of civilians of other nations were worth less.
It’s a narcissism best exemplified by former vice-president Dick Cheney’s answer when asked just last week on what grounds he would object to Iran waterboarding Americans when he maintained his support for America’s right to use waterboarding. “We have obligations towards our citizens,” he said. “And we do everything to protect our citizens.”
Actually, I’d say this is far better example of narcissism after a savage terrorist attack, in this case, the 7/7 bombings Al Qaeda inflicted upon London in 2005:
Today’s Guardian gives space to Dilpazier Aslam, a “Guardian trainee journalist” who suggests that one shouldn’t be shocked by Thursday’s suicide bombings – such a reaction would be inappropriate because, among other reasons:
“Shocked would be to suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of our own.”
Yes, ladies and gentlemen – we bear responsibility for the murderous actions of maniacal members of a religious cult. An apology is certainly called for – the queue forms to the right.Needless to say, there are other reasons why shock is inappropriate. Mr. Aslam explains:
“Shocked would be to say that we don’t understand how, in the green hills of Yorkshire, a group of men given all the liberties they could have wished for could do this.”
Fortunately for those who still don’t quite follow, Mr. Aslam provides an explanation immediately, in the very next paragraph – which reads, in its entirety:
“The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don’t-rock-the boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We’re much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not.”
Suicide bombing …. sassy!
Incidentally, it should be pointed out that there’s no question whatever about this “Yorkshire lad’s” loyalty to Britain. He has made it quite clear that:
“Muslims grant their loyalty and allegiance to their deen and the Ummah, not to a football team or nation state.”
Neither should there be any questions concerning the Guardian’s use of columnists who advocate “fighting fire with fire” to bring about the establishment of a sharia-based Caliphate. After all, it’s not the first time they’ve done so.
Check out the author of that last hyperlink. If he collects residuals on his work (his written work that is), I wonder whom the Guardian is forwarding the checks to.
Oh, and speaking of England, The Sun recently reported that “London Mayor Boris Johnson helps unveil a poignant sculpture dedicated to those killed during the 9/11 terrorist attacks:”
He joined former New York City Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen and US artist Miya Ando at its temporary location in Battersea Park, South London.
The 28ft sculpture is built from three sections of the World Trade Center buildings, hit by two passenger jets ten years ago this Sunday.
Poignant is very much in the eyes of the beholder; perhaps the goal of its designers was to ensure that no one could find a trace of heroism and bravery in a sculpture so aesthetically repellant.