Is the west oversentimental about 9/11?

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

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.