Is the west oversentimental about 9/11?

m@cc@ · 08-09-2011 11:40PM

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?

A one-off event will always attract more sentiment than a few years of conflict.

Would commemorating the people who died in the Omagh bombing be over sentimental because many more people died in the 30 years previous?

fedor.2. · 08-09-2011 11:42PM

Wait till we need the resources of the Congo, then they'll be in trouble

jugger0 · 08-09-2011 11:42PM

gargleblaster wrote: »

At least you're not claiming to speak for every American this time. :rolleyes:

As for your memorial to the deaths of foreign civilians killed by members of your country in military actions, how many do you have wherever you live?

You haven't been right about much at all so far, so save it.

Cool story bro.

My country has never been in a war.

Here's a scenario for ya, the radio broadcasts 2 stories, one claims a stray bomb kills 50 civilians the other an Iraqi insurgent kills 1 American soldier... which one upsets the public more?

Capt'n Midnight · 08-09-2011 11:42PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

Also opium fields

The Taliban virtually eliminated the opium trade, which has come back again since the invasion.

How many US citizens did that impact ?

m@cc@ · 08-09-2011 11:43PM

jugger0 wrote: »

My country has never been in a war.

Every country has been in a war to varying degrees.

gargleblaster · 08-09-2011 11:43PM

jugger0 wrote: »

Cool story bro.

My country has never been in a war.

Not interested in your scenarios.

Your country is Ireland I take it? How many memorials are there to the British civilans killed by Irish terrorists?

jugger0 · 08-09-2011 11:44PM

gargleblaster wrote: »

Not interested in your scenarios.

Your country is Ireland I take it? How many memorials are there to the British civilans killed by Irish terrorists?

The IRA represented the Irish government?

El Weirdo · 08-09-2011 11:44PM

m@cc@ wrote: »

A one-off event will always attract more sentiment than a few years of conflict.

Would commemorating the people who died in the Omagh bombing be over sentimental because many more people died in the 30 years previous?

There isn't wall-to-wall coverage in the media about the Omagh bombings.

jugger0 · 08-09-2011 11:45PM

m@cc@ wrote: »

Every country has been in a war to varying degrees.

Well i suppose the Brits came over and made one for us.

m@cc@ · 08-09-2011 11:48PM

jugger0 wrote: »

Well i suppose the Brits came over and made one for us.

Do you really think there were no Irish troops in WWII?

jugger0 · 08-09-2011 11:50PM

m@cc@ wrote: »

Do you really think there were no Irish troops in WWII?

My grand uncle was in operation market garden, but he was fighting under the British, Ireland was neutral.

RichieC · 08-09-2011 11:50PM

the news media pushes it... vultures really if you think about it.

m@cc@ · 08-09-2011 11:51PM

jugger0 wrote: »

My grand uncle was in operation market garden, but he was fighting under the British, Ireland was neutral.

What's more important, the position of the people or the position of government? Being neutral in WWII is not something to necessarily something be proud of whatever the reasons.

A Primal Nut · 08-09-2011 11:52PM

El Weirdo wrote: »

But it's in a pretty handy spot.

So they would go to war because of that? I think its better to remember that it's always easier for America to form alliances with countries than go to war with them, in order to get their way.

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

Again, China was the big oil winner, not the US. If it was really about oil, I'm sure they would have made damn sure their companies got those contracts.

Besides, we haven't seen any evidence, in the 8 years since the war, that the war is about oil, other than a few out-of-context sentences.

It's always being the simple explanation. "It's about the oil" but it's lazy analysis that never has any evidence and doesn't make economic sense either.

With Afghanistan, Bush reacted on conservative public sentiment, his support base, that revenge was necessary. In addition, as horrible as the war was, there is no doubt that leaving Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan would have resulted in many more attacks in America. That is where all the training camps were based and Al-Qaeda had a free hand to do what they pleased. The taliban admitted they supported Al-Qaeda and its known that is where their main operatives were at the time. Bush then made a decision that is worth sacrificing American military and Afghani lives to save American lives, and they also believed that the Taliban were so hated that the war and aftermath would be an easy one. Big mistake!

With Iraq, I found it hard to believe they actually believed Saddam had WMD's but then again, if they knew he didn't have them and still went to war, surely they would have also made sure to plant WMD's there, as many conspiracy theorists predicted they would. If they were willing to lie about them before the war, they wouldn't be long planting them either! Combine that with Bush senior's admininstration's regrets over not finishing the job in 1991, and again false expectations that the war would be easy due to the hatred of Saddam within Iraq, and there are your reasons right there.

I'm not condoning either war, obviously both have been a disaster for both countries as well as for the American military. But dismissining it as "it was all about the oil" isn't really a helpful analysis.

MagicSean · 08-09-2011 11:52PM

The attack on the twin towers was a deliberate, cowardly, unprovoked attack on civilians. It was an act of war against "infidels" which is basically the western world. Same goes for the London bombings. It was an attempt to have us live in fear. It's the motivation and deliberate nature of the attacks that make them so horrific.

El Weirdo · 08-09-2011 11:56PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm not condoning either war, obviously both have been a disaster for both countries as well as for the American military. But dismissining it as "it was all about the oil" isn't really a helpful analysis.

To be fair, I didn't say the Iraq war was "all about the oil". I agree that it was to do with Bush Snr not finishing the job.

Also, many of Bush's cronies did alright financially out of it, didn't they?

jugger0 · 08-09-2011 11:57PM

m@cc@ wrote: »

What's more important, the position of the people or the position of government? Being neutral in WWII is not something to necessarily something be proud of whatever the reasons.

Of course the position of the Government matters more, staying neutral was the right thing to do, imagine fighting for a evil empire who treated us like **** for 800 years against another evil empire... i mean the British were sticking up for the small European countries from the evil German invaders... oh the sweet irony! how many countries has Britain invaded and pillaged?

A Primal Nut · 08-09-2011 11:58PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Yeah but they are black and poor so they don't count according to Western media.

Blah, blah its the media's fault. So why all the focus on Somalia and Ethiopian famines, for example? We are always hearing about the terrible things that happen in Africa; if anything its about time the Western media discuss some of the positives things that happen there. Not every African is living a terrible life but it would appear that way from watching the news sometimes.

badabing106 · 09-09-2011 12:02AM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The attack on the twin towers was a deliberate, cowardly, unprovoked attack on civilians.

Really? That was the reason they attacked? I guess you are one of those people that don't try to look at the real reasons why a people may attack..:rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight · 09-09-2011 12:02AM

jugger0 wrote: »

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

In a word revenge.

Americans don't understand history - two basic principles, the way people behave in the past will probably happen again, and even foreigners can behave the way people in your history behaved.

A lot of TV/Films/stories/history in the US is about people fighting impossible odds.

Stories where they loose and everyone dies trying aren't that rare.
The Alamo
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035664/ Bataan

Thing is , fighting the US is fighting impossible odds. But American history would have told them that people do that even when it will mean certain death.

Do Americans need to be constantly reminded that their country is the classic example of insurgents who fought a superpower and won ?

AG2R · 09-09-2011 12:04AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

American life = priceless

Afghani life = about three fiddy

Oil>beats both.

A Primal Nut · 09-09-2011 12:05AM

I think with regard to the topic on hand, the media are overdoing it. To be fair there are so many stories to be told that it can make for interesting viewing.

I don't think most Americans think 9/11 is worse than the Congo wars, for example, but I can still understand why they devote so much media coverage to the former.

It was one of the most memorable days of my life and even if in the aftermath, it turned out only 30 people died, for example, I still think people would remember it just as much.

mossyc123 · 09-09-2011 12:08AM

wes wrote: »

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.

You have no more knowledge then I do as to whether the people in Iraq are happier now then they were 10 years ago.

I'd say that they generally are as they are no longer governed by an absolute monster of a man and his psychopathic sons.

They actually have the chance to vote for who they want to govern them.

It's strange for someone in the west to sit back and say that they were grand before the invasion and that if they were only left alone everything would be ok for them.

Very easy to say that when your not living in an oppressive state.

Things were getting worse under Saddam and were never bound to get better.

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.

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

It had EVERYTHING to do with Afghanistan.

The whole leadership of Al-Qaeda were based there.

The planning and direct liaison between the hijackers and the leadership took place in Afghanistan.

The US should have been in there supporting Massoud* and the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from about '98 instead of sitting on there hands and waiting to be attacked.

*An absolute legend of a man, check him out here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massoud

RichieC · 09-09-2011 12:12AM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

It's always being the simple explanation. "It's about the oil" but it's lazy analysis that never has any evidence and doesn't make economic sense either.

With Afghanistan, Bush reacted on conservative public sentiment, his support base, that revenge was necessary. In addition, as horrible as the war was, there is no doubt that leaving Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan would have resulted in many more attacks in America. That is where all the training camps were based and Al-Qaeda had a free hand to do what they pleased. The taliban admitted they supported Al-Qaeda and its known that is where their main operatives were at the time. Bush then made a decision that is worth sacrificing American military and Afghani lives to save American lives, and they also believed that the Taliban were so hated that the war and aftermath would be an easy one. Big mistake!

With Iraq, I found it hard to believe they actually believed Saddam had WMD's but then again, if they knew he didn't have them and still went to war, surely they would have also made sure to plant WMD's there, as many conspiracy theorists predicted they would. If they were willing to lie about them before the war, they wouldn't be long planting them either! Combine that with Bush senior's admininstration's regrets over not finishing the job in 1991, and again false expectations that the war would be easy due to the hatred of Saddam within Iraq, and there are your reasons right there.

I'm not condoning either war, obviously both have been a disaster for both countries as well as for the American military. But dismissining it as "it was all about the oil" isn't really a helpful analysis.

I reckon the war was about strategic bases in their future war with Iran, they are surrounding them.

http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/wp-content/uploads/US-military-buildup-around-Iran.png

fedor.2. · 09-09-2011 12:12AM

badabing106 wrote: »

Really? That was the reason they attacked? I guess you are one of those people that don't try to look at the real reasons why a people may attack..:rolleyes:

You tell us why they attacked so.....i cant wait to hear this

jive · 09-09-2011 12:31AM

The Americans get attacked so they go to war for whatever reason (primarily being WMDs which were never there, go figure). What many people fail to realise is now instead of people dying on American soil like on 9/11 people are dying on Afghani and Iraqi soil. It's the same thing just happening somewhere else. They can't justify either war and nobody can justify the attacks that occurred on 9/11. At the end of the day it's all about the $$$. It's a very sad situation. They didn't really have any choice but to go to war because the USA! USA! USA! masses would not have been happy at all. The only people I feel sorry for are the soldiers who had no choice but to go to war.

Capt'n Midnight · 09-09-2011 12:44AM

fedor.2. wrote: »

Wait till we need the resources of the Congo, then they'll be in trouble

gold, tantalum, tin and tungsten. used in phones and computers

Capt'n Midnight · 09-09-2011 12:53AM

jive wrote: »

The only people I feel sorry for are the soldiers who had no choice but to go to war.

Did they bring back conscription ? Must have missed that.

MOSSAD · 09-09-2011 12:56AM

The Taliban gave cover to Bin laden and co. They knew what he had done in Kenya and in Yemen, so they were fair game. Of course let's not forget what the Taliban were doing to their own people-dragging them back to the Dark Ages
Sad thing is the whole Iraq fiasco,which frankly was GW getting revenge on Saddam for attempeting o kill Bush Sr., of course oil.
The big mistake was not finishing off Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
They ought to have done that then gone home.
Now they negotiate with the Taliban............
sorry for going off topic, it's one tangled web
It should be remembered that 42 planned attacks on the US by Islamic terrorists have been prevented since 9/11. That might focus the mind.
Ultimately, it's our way of life that these thugs want to end.

wes · 09-09-2011 12:58AM

mossyc123 wrote: »

You have no more knowledge then I do as to whether the people in Iraq are happier now then they were 10 years ago.

I never claimed anyone was happier............ Just that things eventually getting better doesn't retroactively justify the US's criminal invasion.

mossyc123 wrote: »

I'd say that they generally are as they are no longer governed by an absolute monster of a man and his psychopathic sons.

Yes, and did anyone ask them if they were willing to sacrifice 1000s of people? Oh wait, there opinion doesn't matter....

mossyc123 wrote: »

They actually have the chance to vote for who they want to govern them.

Sure, but no excuse for all the dead caused by the US invasion.

Also, the US happily supported Saddam when he was murdering Kurds back in the day. So its laughable to even suggest they did it for democracy, when they left Saddam well enough alone when he was engaged in genocide.

mossyc123 wrote: »

It's strange for someone in the west to sit back and say that they were grand before the invasion and that if they were only left alone everything would be ok for them.

I have no idea either what would have happened if there was no invasion, what I do know is that American criminals killed a lot of people, and some people are making excuses for them.

The Iraq war was a huge mistake, and complete and utter failure. Things getting better after nearly 1 million dead does not retroactively justify the utter stupidity and criminality of the war. The country is still a mess, and there are still a lot of refugee's out there. Yes, things are getting better, but as I said that was going to happen sooner or later, in spite of the death and destruction caused by the US government and there utter criminal stupidity.

mossyc123 wrote: »

Very easy to say that when your not living in an oppressive state.

Yes, and Iraq was no more oppressive than the Congo, Occupied Palestine, Bahrain, Saudia Arabia, and Burma for example. So why no interventions in those countries? Oh wait, most of them are US allies.

mossyc123 wrote: »

Things were getting worse under Saddam and were never bound to get better.

Oh please, the US invasion resulted in 1000s of death, with an upper estimate of 1 million. Simply indefensible scale of death that the US government is responsible for. You can talk about what if's till the cows come home, but a lot of people are dead, due the criminal actions of the US, which you defend to the hilt.

mossyc123 wrote: »

It had EVERYTHING to do with Afghanistan.

The whole leadership of Al-Qaeda were based there.

The planning and direct liaison between the hijackers and the leadership took place in Afghanistan.

I was talking about Iraq having nothing to do with Afghanistan........ Iraq has nothing to do with Afghanistan or Al Qaeda, but then that was hardly the only lie use to justify they US's murderous invasion of Iraq, let not forget the imaginary WMD.

Is the west oversentimental about 9/11?

Comments