Just looking at consequences of terror attacks and the resulting incentives for leaders, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that every politician is at least amenable to an attack, or to take a step further even hoping for one.
What happens during an attack? Do politicians or any of their family/friends/elite compatriots ever get killed in them? Nope, they're all safely insulated and protected by every human and technological security measure possible. And they wouldn't be caught dead (pardon the pun) in crowds with all the common folk, aka ideal terrorist targets.
And as far aa the aftermath, you'd think any politician would have their career ruined by having an attack place on their watch, but in reality it's the exact opposite. They're hailed as heroes for their knee-jerk legislation and war mongering after the fact, we've seen it with bush and obama most recently but there are examples going back to before the US was even a country.
If the country's response to an attack was collective self-reflection on what policies and actions caused a group to want to attack us to begin with, and then a change in those policies, then we might actually see a decline in terrorism. But of course our response, from the native americans all the way up to now has always been to condemn the savages for threatening our obviously superior way of life, and dig in our heels even harder. To give the already oppressive government even more power, and hand over even more taxpayer money to war profiteers.
I think of politicians the same way I think of billionaire businesses magnates, not as evil masterminds rubbing their hands together at the thought of how many people they're going to screw. But rather they're highly motivated people in a system that rewards sociopathic behavior with massive wealth and power. Both groups literally have convinced themselves that they're helping the populous, and that's why they're so succesful. Anyone who opposes them is just misguided or ignorant.
It's easy to vilify them but it's just a cop out that removes the responsibility from the complacent people that refuse to do what needs to be done.
It's right in everyone's faces that loss of life and property are the 2 things that motivate people on a mass scale. When it's done to the masses it's called taxation and law enforecement. When it's done by them it's called theft and terrorism. When that's the basis of our system no one can be surprised when the multitudes end up slaving their lives away enriching the lucky few.
The only people to blame are the masses who willing support it
there are examples going back to before the US was even a country.
I'm not disagreeing, but I'd appreciate the history lesson. I know that Paine's claims of "Indian attacks" in Common Sense was a bit specious. I think you might know things I don't.
response to an attack was collective self-reflection on what policies and actions caused a group to want to attack us
He leans very liberal, but Howard Zinns 'A Peoples History of the United States' goes into great detail about this. The various natives peoples in north, south and central america all suffered this same treatment from Columbus up to the last US President that pushed tribes onto reservations. Not only them but any rebellious slaves, I migrant workers, poor whites, unions, civil right activists, war protestors, etc. Anyone who disagrees with the status quo and actually does anything other than complain will be subject to violations of their rights at least, or outright murder at worst. It's happened so many times it can't really be seen as anything other than standard operating procedure.
When you value 'the American way of life' above the rights of any individual or group, even if that way of life is terrible for a majority of people, you can justify all kinds of atrocities against anyone who tries to change it and isn't a politician or ceo.
view the rest of the comments →
PardiGras ago
Just looking at consequences of terror attacks and the resulting incentives for leaders, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that every politician is at least amenable to an attack, or to take a step further even hoping for one.
What happens during an attack? Do politicians or any of their family/friends/elite compatriots ever get killed in them? Nope, they're all safely insulated and protected by every human and technological security measure possible. And they wouldn't be caught dead (pardon the pun) in crowds with all the common folk, aka ideal terrorist targets.
And as far aa the aftermath, you'd think any politician would have their career ruined by having an attack place on their watch, but in reality it's the exact opposite. They're hailed as heroes for their knee-jerk legislation and war mongering after the fact, we've seen it with bush and obama most recently but there are examples going back to before the US was even a country.
If the country's response to an attack was collective self-reflection on what policies and actions caused a group to want to attack us to begin with, and then a change in those policies, then we might actually see a decline in terrorism. But of course our response, from the native americans all the way up to now has always been to condemn the savages for threatening our obviously superior way of life, and dig in our heels even harder. To give the already oppressive government even more power, and hand over even more taxpayer money to war profiteers.
I think of politicians the same way I think of billionaire businesses magnates, not as evil masterminds rubbing their hands together at the thought of how many people they're going to screw. But rather they're highly motivated people in a system that rewards sociopathic behavior with massive wealth and power. Both groups literally have convinced themselves that they're helping the populous, and that's why they're so succesful. Anyone who opposes them is just misguided or ignorant.
It's easy to vilify them but it's just a cop out that removes the responsibility from the complacent people that refuse to do what needs to be done.
It's right in everyone's faces that loss of life and property are the 2 things that motivate people on a mass scale. When it's done to the masses it's called taxation and law enforecement. When it's done by them it's called theft and terrorism. When that's the basis of our system no one can be surprised when the multitudes end up slaving their lives away enriching the lucky few.
The only people to blame are the masses who willing support it
pitenius ago
I'm not disagreeing, but I'd appreciate the history lesson. I know that Paine's claims of "Indian attacks" in Common Sense was a bit specious. I think you might know things I don't.
But Rush told me this was lefty-lib whining! :)
PardiGras ago
He leans very liberal, but Howard Zinns 'A Peoples History of the United States' goes into great detail about this. The various natives peoples in north, south and central america all suffered this same treatment from Columbus up to the last US President that pushed tribes onto reservations. Not only them but any rebellious slaves, I migrant workers, poor whites, unions, civil right activists, war protestors, etc. Anyone who disagrees with the status quo and actually does anything other than complain will be subject to violations of their rights at least, or outright murder at worst. It's happened so many times it can't really be seen as anything other than standard operating procedure.
When you value 'the American way of life' above the rights of any individual or group, even if that way of life is terrible for a majority of people, you can justify all kinds of atrocities against anyone who tries to change it and isn't a politician or ceo.