Is the west oversentimental about 9/11?

Slideshowbob

In comparison, how many died since in the war on terror in Iraq/Afganstan?

Is a New York life worth so much more?

Killer Pigeon

No price should be put on the life of another.

Liam Byrne

Apparently so, despite Baghdad being nearer to us than New York.

Even the wonderfully cynical and on-the-ball Team America gave in to the hype at the end of the film.

Kevin Duffy

I don't oversentimentalise the 9th of November.

starbelgrade

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

No price should be put on the life of another.

American life = priceless

Afghani life = about three fiddy

peasant

It used to be called called PROPAGANDA. These days they call it "spin".
Nothing to do with being sentimental. We are being manipulated.

gargleblaster

starbelgrade wrote: »

American life = priceless

Afghani life = about three fiddy

the west != America

Or do you really think that statement only applies to Americans?



Anyway to answer the OP's question - yes. This happens in every country though. Whatever affects them is of course of more importance than things that affect people in other countries / outgroups.

squod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-q8N5wye58

Latchy

It wasn't just Americans who died on 9/11 , many europeans including Irish and British died to but it's a tragedy none the less regardless of any oversentiment .

A Primal Nut

I think its more because everyone remembers watching the news coverage and the shock of it, and because so many people died at once.

The Iraq War and Afghanistan War have got plenty of media coverage too so I'm not sure what point you are making, really.

El Weirdo

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The Iraq War and Afghanistan War have got plenty of media coverage too...

But from who's perspective?

Otis Driftwood

Slideshowbob wrote: »

In comparison, how many died since in the war on terror in Iraq/Afganstan?

Is a New York life worth so much more?

Well the major difference is that most involved in the conflict in the Middle East that have been killed were there by choice.

The people that died in the September 11 attacks for the most part were ordinary people doing their job,taking a flight etc.

Its nothing to do with one life being worth more and tbh thats a pretty stupid argument.

MrStuffins

They speak English in New York. They don't speak english in Afghaniraq or whatever backwards place you're on about

/thread

Liam Byrne

Latchy wrote: »

It wasn't just Americans who died on 9/11 , many europeans including Irish and British died to but it's a tragedy none the less regardless of any oversentiment .

Are you suggesting that there were no Irish or British living in Iraq that the invasion turned into (to use the despicable cop-out phrase) "collateral damage" ?

geetar

your point is silly.

its not the amount of deaths that makes 9/11 ( or 11/9 for all you annoying people) so important. it was the symbolic attack on american soil, showing how the worlds biggest superpower was powerless and had to watch as it was being attacked, broadcasted live across the world that makes it such a big deal.

A Primal Nut

From every perspective. Most British and Irish media coverage has been critical of the Iraq/Afghan wars, so I don't see this media conspiracy people seem to think exists. I can't remember the last time I seen or read something positive about those wars, even in the American media (apart from Fox News)?

gargleblaster

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Well the major difference is that most involved in the conflict in the Middle East that have been killed were there by choice.

The people that died in the September 11 attacks for the most part were ordinary people doing their job,taking a flight etc.

Its nothing to do with one life being worth more and tbh thats a pretty stupid argument.

Not sure what you mean there, the vast majority of the millions of Iraqi civilians who died in the illegal Iraq invasion were just going about their day to day lives, just as everyone at the WTC.

MistyCheese

What happened at the Twin Towers in New York on the 11th of September 2001 was terrible, tragic, a travesty but I did my grieving at the time. Fortunately no-one I know was hurt so the grieving did not last for ten years.

I understand completely the pain still being very deep for people involved and their families, friends and co-workers or indeed anyone who was affected by what happened but as a non-American who was not affected I don't feel extraordinarily emotive about this event.

To sum up, it was terrible, but it was ten years ago. It didn't directly affect me so I sympathise with those who were affected and move on swiftly.

NIMAN

And what about the million or so who are said to have died by the West imposing a blockade on Iraq for over a decade.

Were they guilty? Of what?

A Primal Nut

gargleblaster wrote: »

Not sure what you mean there, the vast majority of the millions of Iraqi civilians who died in the illegal Iraq invasion were just going about their day to day lives, just as everyone at the WTC.

They weren't killed by the invasion though, most of them were killed by suicide bombings.

And unfortunately we here about Iraqi civilians being killed all the time. Not sure why 9/11 is any different.

KINGVictor

Reality is about 3000 people died on that day!...yes a lot of people have died in Iraq/Afganistan like you mentioned, but there wont be any need for those deaths if they did not accommodate and facilitate the actions of the terrorists..

It is so easy to pontificate on how people should feel if you have not been directly affected.

wes

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Well the major difference is that most involved in the conflict in the Middle East that have been killed were there by choice.

Bull****, utter utter bull****. The 1,000s of civilians (upper estimates of a million from some sources), were not there by choice. A group of crazy people from the US invaded the country and wrecked the place, and stood by while a sectarian civil war took place, which was directly the result of the US invasion.

As for the OPs question, the answer is Yes. For example September the 11th is the Anniversary of the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, where democratically elected Allende was over thrown, with US backing. Don't get me wrong, September 11th was a horrible crime, but I can list equally horrible crimes, that deserve as much attention the world over, that barely get a mention.

Crazy Horse 6

Sick of hearing about it at this stage. I mean it's 24/7 at this stage and it's not even Sunday yet.

gargleblaster

MistyCheese wrote: »

To sum up, it was terrible, but it was ten years ago. It didn't directly affect me so I sympathise with those who were affected and move on swiftly.

Hell, I live here and it affected me deeply, but it's been 10 years and the coverage here is - I won't even watch any of it. It started about a month ago, if that tells you anything.

El Weirdo

KINGVictor wrote: »

Reality is about 3000 people died on that day!...yes a lot of people have died in Iraq/Afganistan like you mentioned, but there wont be any need for those deaths if they did not accommodate and facilitate the actions of the terrorists..

It is so easy to pontificate on how people should feel if you have not been directly affected.

What?

flutterflye

People need to get the fcuk over it.
Worse goes on every minute of every day elsewhere in the world.

A Primal Nut

NIMAN wrote: »

And what about the million or so who are said to have died by the West imposing a blockade on Iraq for over a decade.

Were they guilty? Of what?

Most of them were guilty of not sharing the same beliefs/tribal identity as Saddam, the marsh arabs and the kurds in particular, and the shi'ites to toa lesser extent. Which is the main reason they died rather than the the blockade.

MrStuffins

hang on now lads

Who the f*ck says that people dont care about lives lost in both cases.

I, for one, do! But the difference here is that I sat in front of the TV and watched live coverage of 3500 people dying all at once! it brings me back very sharp and vivid memories.

fedor.2.

El Weirdo wrote: »

What?

You heard him

wes

KINGVictor wrote: »

Reality is about 3000 people died on that day!...yes a lot of people have died in Iraq/Afganistan like you mentioned, but there wont be any need for those deaths if they did not accommodate and facilitate the actions of the terrorists..

Iraq had nothing at all to do with September 11th. The US government at the time (criminals who should be in jail) lied about any such links, and lied about WMD. The neocons wanted to invade Iraq long before September 11th, and quite frankly a lot of blood in on the US governments hands, due to there invasion of Iraq, which also meant they messed up in Afghanistan as well, leading to more lives lost.

A lot of lives were lost directly due to the US government. Al Qaeda aren't the only ones with blood on there hands.

jugger0

Americans care about about American deaths, why care about the deaths of people who hate you?

starbelgrade

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Well the major difference is that most involved in the conflict in the Middle East that have been killed were there by choice.

Most of the lives lost in major wars & civil wars are civilian.

No-one in Afghanistan asked to be invaded by the US led coalition, so even those who fought against them were not killed by choice.

Tens of thousands of people died in what the US called "collateral damage". Such a fucked up term.

And let's not forget that not one of the 9/11 hijackers were even from Afghanistan. The invasion of their country was not about revenge. It was not about countering terrorism. It was not even about freedom. This was a war for oil & money.

And those who were killed in the war had little choice in that matter, whether they were fighting back or not.

fedor.2.

flutterflye wrote: »

People need to get the fcuk over it.
Worse goes on every minute of every day elsewhere in the world.

Eh, it clearly doesnt

gargleblaster

A Primal Nut wrote: »

They weren't killed by the invasion though, most of them were killed by suicide bombings.

And unfortunately we here about Iraqi civilians being killed all the time. Not sure why 9/11 is any different.

WTF? Source?

Sorry, but plenty were killed with bombs. Plenty more were killed by diseases like cholera because their sewage treatment plants were blown up (which by the way is a war crime, not that anyone will ever be punished).

KINGVictor wrote: »

Reality is about 3000 people died on that day!...yes a lot of people have died in Iraq/Afganistan like you mentioned, but there wont be any need for those deaths if they did not accommodate and facilitate the actions of the terrorists..

It is so easy to pontificate on how people should feel if you have not been directly affected.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

NIMAN

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Most of them were guilty of not sharing the same beliefs/tribal identity as Saddam, the marsh arabs and the kurds in particular, and the shi'ites to toa lesser extent. Which is the main reason they died rather than the the blockade.

Balls, read this
http://www.ilaam.net/War/IraqEmbargo.html

they were killed by the blockade of the West

A Primal Nut

starbelgrade wrote: »

Most of the lives lost in major wars & civil wars are civilian.

No-one in Afghanistan asked to be invaded by the US led coalition, so even those who fought against them were killed by choice.

Tens of thousands of people died in what the US called "collateral damage". Such a fucked up term.

And let's not forget that not one of the 9/11 hijackers were even from Afghanistan. The invasion of their country was not about revenge. It was not about countering terrorism. It was not even about freedom. This was a war for oil & money.

And those who were killed in the war had little choice in that matter, whether they were fighting back or not.

Afghanistan doesn't have oil and the war has cost the US trillions of dollars. Also Al-Qaeda were based in Afghanistan so the fact that none of the hijackers were Afghani is irrelevant.

mossyc123

wes wrote: »

Iraq had nothing at all to do with September 11th. The US government at the time (criminals who should be in jail) lied about any such links, and lied about WMD. The neocons wanted to invade Iraq long before September 11th, and quite frankly a lot of blood in on the US governments hands, due to there invasion of Iraq, which also meant they messed up in Afghanistan as well, leading to more lives.

A lot of lives were lost directly due to the US government. Al Qaeda aren't the only ones with blood on there hands.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now then they were under Saddam and under the Taliban.

The invasions weren't wrong , the execution of them most definitely was.

Capt'n Midnight

The West ?

Cold war is over. We don't have to pay lip service to the Yanks.

9/11 was a wake up call for the US, they realised what the rest of the world thought of them. The rest of us know the US was percieved by those with a grudge against them.

fedor.2.

NIMAN wrote: »

Balls, read this
http://www.ilaam.net/War/IraqEmbargo.html

they were killed by the blockade of the West

Why was there a blockade?

gargleblaster

jugger0 wrote: »

Americans care about about American deaths, why care about the deaths of people who hate you?

Speak for yourself, you do not speak for me.

FouxDaFaFa

One of the main reasons it's constantly in our face is that it was an extremely concentrated event. It happened on one day, in one area (pretty much). Plus, we have live footage of the event. As horrific as the deaths in Iraq have been, they've taken place over 10 years all over Iraq. It's harder to relate to than seeing an atrocity happen before you on the tv. However, it would be naive not to see that a lot of media have their own agenda and have turned to what I like to call "9/11 porn" to fill up time.Showing the event over and over is bound to provoke a reaction without much effort on their part.

Liam Byrne

KINGVictor wrote: »

Reality is about 3000 people died on that day!...yes a lot of people have died in Iraq/Afganistan like you mentioned, but there wont be any need for those deaths if they did not accommodate and facilitate the actions of the terrorists..

It is so easy to pontificate on how people should feel if you have not been directly affected.

Absolutely astonishing!

You do realise that you have just done the equivalent of condoning an invasion of Ireland and the murder of loads of innocent Irish people just because a small minority supported the IRA ?

Jesus H!!!!! If the British had acted with that mindset we'd all be dead and not even having this excuse for a debate!

fedor.2.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The West ?

Cold war is over. We don't have to pay lip service to the Yanks.

9/11 was a wake up call for the US, they realised what the rest of the world thought of them. The rest of us know the US was percieved by those with a grudge against them.

What exactly does the rest of the world think of America? you sound like a person in the know, do tell

starbelgrade

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Afghanistan doesn't have oil and the war has cost the US trillions of dollars. Also Al-Qaeda were based in Afghanistan so the fact that none of the hijackers were Afghani is irrelevant.

Afghanistan doesn't have oil, but since 1998, the US has been fighting against the Taliban in their efforts to build pipelines across the country from Turkmenistan to Pakistan.

El Weirdo

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Afghanistan doesn't have oil...

But it's in a pretty handy spot.

Also, what's the excuse for the invasion of Iraq?

fedor.2.

El Weirdo wrote: »

But it's in a pretty handy spot.

Its a sh1t hole

Temptamperu

starbelgrade wrote: »

Afghanistan doesn't have oil, but since 1998, the US has been fighting against the Taliban in their efforts to build pipelines across the country from Turkmenistan to Pakistan.

Also opium fields

fedor.2.

Temptamperu wrote: »

Also opium fields

Doing well i hear, business is good

A Primal Nut

NIMAN wrote: »

Balls, read this
http://www.ilaam.net/War/IraqEmbargo.html

they were killed by the blockade of the West

That article also says Saddam's regime allowed a welfare state to flourish. What nonsense.

I think this source is more reputable:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2807821.stm

Saddam's regime messed up ordinary Iraqi's livelihoods much more than any blockade. There were 400,000 Marsh Arabs living self sufficient lifestyles in the 1950's reduced to 20,000. The rest were dead or forced to live in extreme poverty in camps in Iran. The Marsh Arabs story is one among many regarding Saddam's brutal rule.

The blockade didn't help but most Iraq's were not given a chance by the regime to have any kind of a decent life.

sxt

Slideshowbob wrote: »

In comparison, how many died since in the war on terror in Iraq/Afganstan?

Is a New York life worth so much more?

I posted this on another forum

According to the lancet report approx 655,000 dead Iraqis between 2003 -2006 .Why are they dead? because 19 people ( 14 from Saudi Arabia) fuelled with hatred against Americas foreign policy, commited a horrific criminal attack on the twin towers and the pentagon ( economic and military figureheads). Eye for an eye?

Lets emphasis that the country of Afghanistan did not attack U.S.A , the country of Iraq did not attack U.S.A

There are were estimated 4-5 million refugees as a result of this illegal war on Iraq . Estimated 1.2 million dead iraqi civilan since 2003. The crippling sanctions on this country and the bombing of all its infrasture mean Iraq is a devastated hell hole now, and will remain so for generations to come.

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton, goes down in infamy not only for admitting that 500,000 innocent children were starved by sanctions on Iraq but also for admitting the atrocity

Her notorious answer was later answered by Bill Richardson, who has now been tapped to serve under Obama.

Do you think about starving 500,000 children has a place in US policy?

When did America decide it was OK to wage war against children?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

wes

mossyc123 wrote: »

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now then they were under Saddam and under the Taliban.

Care to tell that to the 1000's dead in Iraq, and there families? Its funny for people in the West to declare the war in Iraq worth, considering the amount of unneeded death and destruction it causes, and all of it was based on a lie, by a bunch of criminals. Sure, after the death and destruction things are better, they were bound to eventually get better, but that doesn't excuse the criminal invasion by a bunch of American nutters.

Also, Afghanistan would be a hell of the lot better if the neocon nutters didn't invade another country, that had feck all do with Afghanistan. Complete and utter stupidity that lead to even more deaths. Sorry, but the Iraq war is completely indefensible, and was completely stupid.

mossyc123 wrote: »

The invasions weren't wrong , the execution of them most definitely was.

The Iraq war was completely criminal and utterly stupid. 1000's dead, and none of the criminals in prison for there crime.