Since you’re a reader of Neocon News, I trust that you’re of above average intelligence and quick enough to recognize that the Nobel Peace Prize doesn’t really mean anything. Be that as it may, it is always nice to have your assertions proven. The irrelevance and laughable nature of the Prize is reinforced again in the wake of Al Gore’s win with statements made by Nobel laureate Doris Lessing.
Lessing won the Nobel peace prize for her “skepticism, fire and visionary power”. If what follows is ‘visionary power’ then plug me in and pull the crank, because I ought to be swimming in Nobel medals by now.
“September 11 was terrible, but if one goes back over the history of the IRA, what happened to the Americans wasn’t that terrible,” the Nobel Literature Prize winner told the leading Spanish daily El Pais.
“Some Americans will think I’m crazy. Many people died, two prominent buildings fell, but it was neither as terrible nor as extraordinary as they think. They’re a very naive people, or they pretend to be,” she said in an interview published Sunday.
“Do you know what people forget? That the IRA attacked with bombs against our government; it killed several people while a Conservative congress was being held and in which the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was (attending). People forget,” she said.
Nearly 3,000 people were killed in the Sept. 11 attacks. About 3,700 died and tens of thousands of people were maimed in more than 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland. The Irish Republican Army guerrilla group, which caused most of the deaths, disarmed in 2005.
Attempts by The Associated Press to reach Lessing in London for comment Monday were unsuccessful. Her agent’s office said the author was unavailable because she was not feeling well.
You don’t need the lunacy of such statements spelled out for you, but given that there seem to be so many people out there who don’t ‘get’ the War on Terror, my hatemail is proof of that, it is necessary to spell it out.
You cannot disregard the significance of one event through acknowledgment that another is also horrible. What Lessing is proposing here is some sort of sick pissing match akin to what has taken place in schoolyards for ages.
“My tragedy is worse than your tragedy!”
It isn’t edgy to play down the significance of the September 11th attacks. It isn’t being ‘skeptical’, it’s being foolish. The IRA conflict spanned some three decades in order to surpass the 9/11 deathtoll, and any ‘wounded’ count is pure conjecture- just as it would be for 9/11. There are countless thousands who were injured on that morning, thousands who thankfully didn’t die, and we won’t know the full effects of all the pulverized debris that billowed throughout the city for decades to come.
It wasn’t simply ‘two prominent buildings’ that fell. They were massive structures in the middle of a metropolis. It was, regrettably, a very effective terrorist attack that paralyzed the nation in an instant. The economic effects of the attack were felt everywhere, whereas the IRA conflict was self-contained to a single region. I hate to even type that. There is no point for debate such as this, but as long as fools with titles continue to spout off to an overly eager press, refutation is necessary.
What is very telling about Lessing is that she completely ignores the other two planes that crashed on September 11th. She also seems to be ignoring the 189 people killed in the attack on the Pentagon. She argues the significance of the IRA by citing that a major British official was nearby during an attack where people were killed, yet ignores a direct attack on the military headquarters of a superpower, which is seated in the Nation’s capital. Not only did the Secretary of Defense himself dig people from the battered rubble a few blocks from our nation’s lawmakers and judges, but the Congress was targeted as well. It was only through the efforts of a brave flight that fought back upon realizing their horrible fate that we were spared more tragedy on that day.
Lessing is a fool and a disgrace. She is a propagandist and an eager little soldier marching to the ‘war for oil / military industrial complex’ drumbeat. No, it isn’t further speculation on my part. Further down in the article.
“As for Bush, he’s a world calamity,” added Lessing. “Everyone is tired of this man. Either he is stupid or he is very clever, although you have to remember he is a member of a social class which has profited from wars.”
She also has some complaints about the Iranian government, but it is disgusting to mention Bush and Blair in the same breath as Ahmadinejad and the actions his government openly supports. The delusional Bush hatred dilutes her purported vitriol against the Iranian regime, which comes off as just a quick addendum. A fool with a moment of clarity is still a fool.
Others have some strong words for the author: Big Lizards: “Why Do So Many People Hate Intellectuals? Let Me Count the Ways…” | Sister Toldjah » If Al Gore and Arafat winning the Nobel prize weren’t proof enough … (UPDATED) | Alas Poor Alfred | BitsBlog | Captain’s Quarters -The Nobel Glory Of Doris Lessing | Memeorandum | normblog | Jules Crittenden » Nobel Gas |
Somewhat related: The Worst ‘Notable Quotables’ of the Past 20 Years | NewsBusters.org | Atlas Shrugs: Liberal Media and Communism
I’ve seen this argument before spouted off in political forums.
I think one of the significant differences between Americans and Europeans is simply this.
No matter who is in office as president the American people will not tolerate terrorist bombings in our cities .
Intellectualize it all you want but that is a fact.
Terror bombings are not a “fact of life” and something we would “learn to live with”, they would simply not be tolerated.
Here here. I would add that it is a difference between liberals and conservatives. I know some conservative Europeans who believe as we (Oldguy, Martino) do, and I know some liberal Americans who believe as Lessing does.
It’s something about how the brain processes events or situations. I’ve had arguments with liberals who have actually (paraphrasing) said: “9/11 wouldn’t have happened on Clinton’s watch. They don’t attack us here if Clinton is in office.” When I trot out the inconvenient truth of the first al qaeda attack on the towers in 1993 and who was in the White House at the time, there is first the denial. Then there is the theory that they weren’t trying to actually “bring down” the towers. Then there is the thought that it happened too soon in Clinton’s presidency to matter. When that last thought is turned around on them to consider the planning and execution of 9/11 and that Bush had been in office for less than 8 months, it is ignored completely.
Then after discussing facts, which to a liberal is akin to Superman’s kryptonite, I move on to another fact. Al qaeda doesn’t care who is in office when they are on the attack. Certainly they care when it comes to the unserious and child-like approach to Islamofascism that liberals have, but as far as hitting their targets, our domestic politics don’t mean much.
And this fact alone that is ignored by the Left is why they cannot be trusted with our national security. They tragically believe the jihadists can be dealt with non-violently.