Paul's Perambulations

August 7, 2012

Was “America” attacked on 9/11?

Filed under: Politics,Religion — admin @ 9:41 pm

We hear that this country was attacked on 9/11. Correction, this country was never seriously attacked. Bin Laden intentionally (and brilliantly, if we can credit his intelligence and not his morals) attacked a particularly diseased segment of this country – the corporate power structure and their political enablers.  I truly grieve for those who were his victims (do NOT mistake this), but the power structures represented by the physical structures are a threat not only to the world but to our American democracy. This country was never seriously threatened, but it was a telling symbolic action, for which the power structure responded with all its compelling force. Those who died in the Iraq War are as much victims as those who died on 9/11, but of a different sort.

2 Comments »

  1. Today an invited speaker spoke about how “we were attacked” on 9/11. In reply I spoke my truth as above, specifically and mindfully opening my remarks by saying as clearly as possible that I was sorry that anyone died on that day. I said that the targets were selected for what they represented — a governance that is no longer representative “of the people, by the people, for the people” nor in line with our Constitution. I also said that the World Trade Towers should never have been shot down, in fact, they never should have been built (if their name is taken seriously, as was the obvious intention).

    Afterwards, someone told me that it sounded like I approved of those in the buildings being killed in the attacks, additionally pointing out that some of those in the world trade center had nothing to do with world trade. I have always acknowledged the latter, but much more important, that comment is not only irrelevant but a serious misunderstanding of my position. I absolutely do not approve of anyone having died that day, regardless of whether they might have been involved in world trade manipulation or not. I always say “I am sorry that ANYONE was killed that day” and certainly have never approved of any of the attacks in any way. But apparently my pointing out my understanding of some of the reasons that generated these particular attacks is so beyond where others are in their thinking, that this may overpower and apparently wipe out the memory of my clear statements that I did not want anyone killed that day, nor for the buildings to be shot down.

    Incidentally, I immediately checked with another person present to confirm that I did say this, and the individual acknowledged my saying this. I must remember to weigh the importance I put on speaking my truth with a consideration if my words can be accurately heard and remembered if other parts of my speech challenge my listeners strong beliefs. Another Friend, upon careful questioning and discussion a day later, confirmed hearing what I recalled saying, and Friend added being in basic agreement with what I had said.

    It is also relevant that the speaker was not speaking to my condition and I found that quite disappointing considering my interest and background in the topic. I also found it frustrating that it was difficult to speak and to be heard (I strongly believe in interaction between speaker and audience). The second time I spoke in response to the speaker, I felt the need to stand up and speak very loudly to be heard by all, while that may have been overly loud and bombast for some. Speaking under difficult circumstances (e.g., noise, deafness, different knowledge backgrounds and interests, people coming and going) poses challenges to right communication. What are the times when it may be better to just keep quiet and not speak one’s truth, even when one feels a strong need to make one’s truth known? There can be good reasons for feeling disappointment and frustration, but there is always the need to acknowledge and control those feelings and respond in the best possible manner under challenging circumstances. All this is something for me, and any readers, to consider.

    Comment by admin — October 21, 2012 @ 8:50 pm

  2. It’s interesting that if I give reasons for Japan attacking Pearl Harbor, folks sometimes think I’m defending the attack. Of course not, but if we don’t understand the reasons for war, we will simply continue to have more wars. Likewise I can give reasons for America launching the Iraq and Vietnam wars. But people hear this quite differently.

    At the time of Pear Harbor, most Americans were expecting war with Japan. The situation is comparable to our attitude towards earthquakes. Most Americans believe that a major earthquake on the west coast is inevitable in the next half century or century. But you can be sure that if/when such an earthquake occurs, most everyone will express great shock and surprise.

    I certainly don’t excuse myself from this human condition. I taught critical thinking for some years at Villanova. The best we can do is to be mindful of this human tendency.

    Comment by admin — October 21, 2012 @ 9:51 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress