6 ms·

This is one of the saddest legacies. The amount of empathy for America was shocking, absolutely staggering, after 9/11. There were countries with every reason t

This is one of the saddest legacies. The amount of empathy for America was shocking, absolutely staggering, after 9/11. There were countries with every reason to hate America, but they too joined in the vigils and were respectful of the loss. I doubt you'll ever see anything like that again. That enormous stockpile of goodwill, like the US budget surplus, was uselessly frittered away within years and everyone was back to hating America again. If there's another attack of this magnitude I think the whole world will be so afraid of what America will do in retaliation that they won't have any strength left for empathy.

allendoerfer 10y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gACIsz_vSXE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gACIsz_vSXE
- locusm 10y ago
  Good to see Jim having success in the U.S.
MichaelMoser123 10y ago
the people of Iran also have every reason to dislike their own dictatorial government [1]; empathy towards the USA might also be a way to display attitudes towards their own system of government, such a display would otherwise be suppressed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Re...
- rhizome 10y ago
  Then again we could just believe what they're saying and doing as a genuine expression without imputing ulterior motives.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    I don't think that's what the parent implied. Besides, the existence of an ulterior motive does not necessary imply a lack of genuineness.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      the existence of an ulterior motive does not necessary imply a lack of genuineness. No, but assigning an ulterior motive is disingenuous.
      - MichaelMoser123 10y ago
        i didn't understand that, why do you think that observing something is disingenuous ? what is the difference between 'assigning ulterior motives' and 'observing reality' ? I would also think that political persecutions are also very disingenuous, I think that it is one of the most wicket things that any government could possibly do.
        rhizome 10y ago
        Your observation is a non-sequitur, and the conclusions you draw are not based on facts. The fact we do have is that they said they did a thing for a particular reason. Nobody has "observed" Iranians protesting against their own government in the form of an empathic reaction to 9/11. At the very least, what degree of organization are you imagining would motivate and populate an ironic protest like that, and who exactly is the audience who would see through the irony? "Ah yes, the world thinks we're being nice to the US, but really we're stickin' it to The Man." It's hard enough to get 5 people together for a practical joke that doesn't get spoiled by someone. I'm sorry if "dictatorial Iran" is a personal hobby horse of yours, but you're really kind of threadshitting by bringing it into the conversation. Lastly, it appears you don't know what "disingenuous" means.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        10y ago
- j_koreth 10y ago
  Although it was the CIA=led coup of the democratically elected government that led conditions to go so extreme with the Islamic Republic and Anti-Western sentiments
  - bobcostas55 10y ago
    "Democratically elected" is one of those wonderful phrases, like "(People's) Democratic Republic" that always means the exact opposite of what the words mean. Mossadegh never won a popular election. He became Prime Minister by assassinating the previous guy, the Parliament then made him Prime Minister. After he got power, he pardoned the assassin, btw.
    - aburan28 10y ago
      Well surely supporting the Shah and the absolute brutality conducted by Savak helped our image
      - eternalban 10y ago
        Did you actually experience the "brutality of [S.A.V.A.K.]" first hand or is this something you've read? One of my uncles, pretty high up in the Tudeh (Communist) Party, spent two tours in Shah's prisons as a political prisoner. He also spent one tour in the Ayatollahs' prisons for the same issue: being a communist. A few years ago, when he came visiting States side, I asked him about it. What he told me was that the Shah's prisons were a joke compared to the ones run by IRI. I have fond memories of him from the late 70s as a very self confident and charming man. Per family gossip, after his release from IRI's prisons he barely said a word for 2 years and was broken. As for "image", it may interest the younger HN reader to know that the very meme of "Shah the brutal dictator" started in the early 70s in the West, with the (finally) now fully established role played by "human rights" organizations that are fronts for Western intelligence services. Yes, SAVAK is a dark stain, having been trained by FBI and MOSSAD contrary to long standing Iranian mores and standards of conduct. But I can point you to youtube videos of public trials of political prisoners during the Shah's regime and challenge you to produce ONE for the multitude of ("brutalized") political prisoners now held in Guantanemo and other undisclosed locations.
- lancewiggs 10y ago
  The second line of the article states: "President Muhammad Khatami condemned it, as did Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei"
karma_vaccum123 10y ago
You're mistaking token affection and photo-ops for a real change in foreign policy. Honestly your comment just seems naive.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Honestly, people were too shocked to hate America, and for once, perhaps the only time in recent history, America seemed humbled. It was hit with something so big, so nasty, that the usual bravado fell away and America, as a collective, was left reeling. The whole world was in complete shock. In that moment we were all willing to let history go away, to embrace America for the victim it was. It was, briefly, a return to the America that the world loved: The one that built a country from the "wretched refuse" of other countries, that made the working class something less than serfs, that made enormous sacrifices to liberate Europe from tyranny. "Photo ops"? It wasn't that. Change in foreign policy? There wasn't time for those changes to go into effect before America was back to its old self, only instead of fighting some endless war against "communism" the new enemy was "terrorism" and instead of Vietnamese it was "Muslims". Of having "Freedom Fries" because France wouldn't buddy up and invade a sovereign country for no reason. There was a very short gap between vigils in the street around the world, in places that had boundless hate for America, because 9/11 is not the sort of thing you'd wish on your worst enemy. Call it naïve if you want, but we were all willing to be naïve that day.
  - ionised 10y ago
    It was, briefly, a return to the America that the world loved: The one that built a country from the "wretched refuse" of other countries, that made the working class something less than serfs, that made enormous sacrifices to liberate Europe from tyranny. This is a highly romanticised take on how other countries might have once perceived the US.
jgalt212 10y ago
> That enormous stockpile of goodwill That was bound to wear off anyway. That being said, we certainly did not help ourselves by invading the wrong country.

allendoerfer 10y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gACIsz_vSXE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gACIsz_vSXE

locusm 10y ago
Good to see Jim having success in the U.S.

MichaelMoser123 10y ago

the people of Iran also have every reason to dislike their own dictatorial government [1]; empathy towards the USA might also be a way to display attitudes towards their own system of government, such a display would otherwise be suppressed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Re...

rhizome 10y ago
Then again we could just believe what they're saying and doing as a genuine expression without imputing ulterior motives.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  I don't think that's what the parent implied. Besides, the existence of an ulterior motive does not necessary imply a lack of genuineness.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    the existence of an ulterior motive does not necessary imply a lack of genuineness. No, but assigning an ulterior motive is disingenuous.
    - MichaelMoser123 10y ago
      i didn't understand that, why do you think that observing something is disingenuous ? what is the difference between 'assigning ulterior motives' and 'observing reality' ? I would also think that political persecutions are also very disingenuous, I think that it is one of the most wicket things that any government could possibly do.
      - rhizome 10y ago
        Your observation is a non-sequitur, and the conclusions you draw are not based on facts. The fact we do have is that they said they did a thing for a particular reason. Nobody has "observed" Iranians protesting against their own government in the form of an empathic reaction to 9/11. At the very least, what degree of organization are you imagining would motivate and populate an ironic protest like that, and who exactly is the audience who would see through the irony? "Ah yes, the world thinks we're being nice to the US, but really we're stickin' it to The Man." It's hard enough to get 5 people together for a practical joke that doesn't get spoiled by someone. I'm sorry if "dictatorial Iran" is a personal hobby horse of yours, but you're really kind of threadshitting by bringing it into the conversation. Lastly, it appears you don't know what "disingenuous" means.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        10y ago
j_koreth 10y ago
Although it was the CIA=led coup of the democratically elected government that led conditions to go so extreme with the Islamic Republic and Anti-Western sentiments
- bobcostas55 10y ago
  "Democratically elected" is one of those wonderful phrases, like "(People's) Democratic Republic" that always means the exact opposite of what the words mean. Mossadegh never won a popular election. He became Prime Minister by assassinating the previous guy, the Parliament then made him Prime Minister. After he got power, he pardoned the assassin, btw.
  - aburan28 10y ago
    Well surely supporting the Shah and the absolute brutality conducted by Savak helped our image
    - eternalban 10y ago
      Did you actually experience the "brutality of [S.A.V.A.K.]" first hand or is this something you've read? One of my uncles, pretty high up in the Tudeh (Communist) Party, spent two tours in Shah's prisons as a political prisoner. He also spent one tour in the Ayatollahs' prisons for the same issue: being a communist. A few years ago, when he came visiting States side, I asked him about it. What he told me was that the Shah's prisons were a joke compared to the ones run by IRI. I have fond memories of him from the late 70s as a very self confident and charming man. Per family gossip, after his release from IRI's prisons he barely said a word for 2 years and was broken. As for "image", it may interest the younger HN reader to know that the very meme of "Shah the brutal dictator" started in the early 70s in the West, with the (finally) now fully established role played by "human rights" organizations that are fronts for Western intelligence services. Yes, SAVAK is a dark stain, having been trained by FBI and MOSSAD contrary to long standing Iranian mores and standards of conduct. But I can point you to youtube videos of public trials of political prisoners during the Shah's regime and challenge you to produce ONE for the multitude of ("brutalized") political prisoners now held in Guantanemo and other undisclosed locations.
lancewiggs 10y ago
The second line of the article states: "President Muhammad Khatami condemned it, as did Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei"

karma_vaccum123 10y ago

You're mistaking token affection and photo-ops for a real change in foreign policy. Honestly your comment just seems naive.

astrodust 10y ago
Honestly, people were too shocked to hate America, and for once, perhaps the only time in recent history, America seemed humbled. It was hit with something so big, so nasty, that the usual bravado fell away and America, as a collective, was left reeling. The whole world was in complete shock. In that moment we were all willing to let history go away, to embrace America for the victim it was. It was, briefly, a return to the America that the world loved: The one that built a country from the "wretched refuse" of other countries, that made the working class something less than serfs, that made enormous sacrifices to liberate Europe from tyranny. "Photo ops"? It wasn't that. Change in foreign policy? There wasn't time for those changes to go into effect before America was back to its old self, only instead of fighting some endless war against "communism" the new enemy was "terrorism" and instead of Vietnamese it was "Muslims". Of having "Freedom Fries" because France wouldn't buddy up and invade a sovereign country for no reason. There was a very short gap between vigils in the street around the world, in places that had boundless hate for America, because 9/11 is not the sort of thing you'd wish on your worst enemy. Call it naïve if you want, but we were all willing to be naïve that day.
- ionised 10y ago
  It was, briefly, a return to the America that the world loved: The one that built a country from the "wretched refuse" of other countries, that made the working class something less than serfs, that made enormous sacrifices to liberate Europe from tyranny. This is a highly romanticised take on how other countries might have once perceived the US.

jgalt212 10y ago

> That enormous stockpile of goodwill That was bound to wear off anyway. That being said, we certainly did not help ourselves by invading the wrong country.