Never Again
I saw this article earlier and I just didn't read it because it felt like emotionalism.
What I mean is, I found the author to be using an emotional issue to draw people to his point of view. And with something as sacred, or as emotional, as 9/11, that's just not right. In no way, in no point of view, in no political climate, is it right.
Stu Bykofsky writes for the Philadelphia Daily News. The headline on his column today reads: "To Save America, We Need Another 9/11."
The article is as retarded as the headline.
It's true we were all American's that day, and that people felt connected. But coming together because of a tragedy is a way we cope with tragedy. We didn't come together because we all agreed on a way forward, we just all agreed we were hurting.
And wishing that kind of pain on our nation and the world a second time is ignorant and irresponsible. Instead of writing articles like these, we'd be better served if we wrote articles about how to prevent these attacks, rather than showing our arrogance and ignorance by ultimately saying, "please come attack us, we need it."
He'd have thousands die just to make the road easier, the view forward plainer. It would make his job easier if he knew who to blame. Another terrorist attack would give him that; a target, an enemy. Instead, with others like him, he can't stand debate and wants it quelled. No talk about things going right in conjunction with things going wrong, it makes things confusing. One or the other, never both. They've choosen things going wrong, and they will do everything they can to make sure things continue to go wrong, so that the path before them is clear.
People like Mr. Bykofsky forget that we are all American's on regular days the same as we are on days of national mourning. The problem for him is, too many voices are now being heard. Too many people have an opinion. A terrorist attack - a national silencer - would limit the voice to one large cry, and it would be easier for him to dissiminate and easier for the politician's to act as a consolidated unit.
We do not ever, ever, ever need to have tragedy occur in order to see a way forward. Tragedy's merely create expedience.
He calls for another attack because he doesn't like the noise. I don't call them "sideshows," they are the show, and they are an essential part of going forward. Ignoring the inticracies of the problem is what brought planes into two towers. Ignoring things like "flying imams" would be irresponsibile. Not talking about whether foreign policy or a military strategy is working or not would be reprehensible.
And in a world today where they use the word "fear-mongering" a lot ... I wonder if Mr. Bykofsky knows that's what he's advocating. He must right? Essentially that is what he's doing. "Everyone agree or else a terrorist attack will make you agree."
9/11 didn't eradicate the American dream. The country and our values are still here. But we aren't the same American's we were before 9/11. We're more aware. Or at least I am so I figure others must be too. A terrorist attack wouldn't have the same effect it did 6 years ago. On 9/10 we were safe in our niavete, we were prosperous and comfortable. On 9/12 no one was sure what would happen to the economy, or what the way ahead looked like. And no longer were we completely safe. Now our shores were reachable ... and the weapon didn't even look like we thought it should.
Our dreams and values and our core competencies still exist as they did ... but a terrorist attack now would merely add to the collective blame going around. And I bet you already know who would catch the most of it.
What I mean is, I found the author to be using an emotional issue to draw people to his point of view. And with something as sacred, or as emotional, as 9/11, that's just not right. In no way, in no point of view, in no political climate, is it right.
Stu Bykofsky writes for the Philadelphia Daily News. The headline on his column today reads: "To Save America, We Need Another 9/11."
The article is as retarded as the headline.
It's true we were all American's that day, and that people felt connected. But coming together because of a tragedy is a way we cope with tragedy. We didn't come together because we all agreed on a way forward, we just all agreed we were hurting.
And wishing that kind of pain on our nation and the world a second time is ignorant and irresponsible. Instead of writing articles like these, we'd be better served if we wrote articles about how to prevent these attacks, rather than showing our arrogance and ignorance by ultimately saying, "please come attack us, we need it."
He'd have thousands die just to make the road easier, the view forward plainer. It would make his job easier if he knew who to blame. Another terrorist attack would give him that; a target, an enemy. Instead, with others like him, he can't stand debate and wants it quelled. No talk about things going right in conjunction with things going wrong, it makes things confusing. One or the other, never both. They've choosen things going wrong, and they will do everything they can to make sure things continue to go wrong, so that the path before them is clear.
People like Mr. Bykofsky forget that we are all American's on regular days the same as we are on days of national mourning. The problem for him is, too many voices are now being heard. Too many people have an opinion. A terrorist attack - a national silencer - would limit the voice to one large cry, and it would be easier for him to dissiminate and easier for the politician's to act as a consolidated unit.
We do not ever, ever, ever need to have tragedy occur in order to see a way forward. Tragedy's merely create expedience.
Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working, if we are "safer" now, whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls, whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams,"
whether those plotting alleged attacks on Fort Dix or Kennedy airport are serious threats or amateur bumblers. We bicker over the trees while the forest is ablaze.
He calls for another attack because he doesn't like the noise. I don't call them "sideshows," they are the show, and they are an essential part of going forward. Ignoring the inticracies of the problem is what brought planes into two towers. Ignoring things like "flying imams" would be irresponsibile. Not talking about whether foreign policy or a military strategy is working or not would be reprehensible.
And in a world today where they use the word "fear-mongering" a lot ... I wonder if Mr. Bykofsky knows that's what he's advocating. He must right? Essentially that is what he's doing. "Everyone agree or else a terrorist attack will make you agree."
9/11 didn't eradicate the American dream. The country and our values are still here. But we aren't the same American's we were before 9/11. We're more aware. Or at least I am so I figure others must be too. A terrorist attack wouldn't have the same effect it did 6 years ago. On 9/10 we were safe in our niavete, we were prosperous and comfortable. On 9/12 no one was sure what would happen to the economy, or what the way ahead looked like. And no longer were we completely safe. Now our shores were reachable ... and the weapon didn't even look like we thought it should.
Our dreams and values and our core competencies still exist as they did ... but a terrorist attack now would merely add to the collective blame going around. And I bet you already know who would catch the most of it.
Comments