DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: GuineaPig on September 11, 2011, 07:17:52 AM
-
I didn't want to put this post in the GD thread, because I knew it would just generate a shitstorm. But it's something I've thought about for a long time, and this is as good a time as any to bring it up.
About 3,000 people died on September 11th, 2001. With the host of related medical problems from people at the scene of the attacks, the number of direct deaths related to it has risen, and will continue to rise, but I doubt it will exceed 10,000.
My point is that I'm a little baffled as to why September 11th is treated as this massive calamity, both in the United States, and around the world. Over 300,000 people died in the Haiti earthquake. Over 200,000 people died as a result of the December 26th tsunami in 2004. Malaria kills nearly a million people each year. Millions of people are starving in East Africa due to drought right now.
I understand the context is different, and that natural disasters are different from calculated attacks against civilians. But over 100,000 civilians have been killed in the Iraq War, something the United States has had a direct hand in starting, and no American politicians are exactly bemoaning that. Meanwhile, there has been civil war in Sudan and Somalia, conflicts in Chad, the Congo, Chechnya, Burundi, etc. And 9/11 doesn't even register in the top 100 for atrocities committed in the last 50 years, let alone if we extend past that. Nevertheless, you can guarantee that another 100 years down the line, people will remember 9/11 more than the Khmer Rouge.
I should note that this isn't exactly unprecedented in history. People remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than Tokyo, or Dresden than Hamburg. People in the West learn a lot more about the Holocaust than the Second Sino-Japanese War.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I ultimately view 9/11 more as a historical event than a "tragedy." While I understand that the context of the attacks differs from many of the things I've mentioned here, I don't think the amount of death and destruction merited the national and international attention of it, let alone the military response to it. Basically, I think the response to it is a manifestation of American exceptionalism; that the lives of Americans inherently have greater value than the citizens of other countries.
Thoughts?
-
I completely agree. It's just about the different perspectives of learning about history. American's are American oriented and selfish.
-
I completely agree. It's just about the different perspectives of learning about history. American's are American oriented and selfish.
All people have a tendency to be selfish and self centered, not just Americans. I think every country and culture has similar tendencies.
-
Also, I want to say, I'm not much in the mood to debate any merits of the OP today. As an American living in Connecticut, I have deep feelings about 9/11. Its emotional for me. I'll leave it at that.
-
I completely agree. It's just about the different perspectives of learning about history. American's are American oriented and selfish.
All people have a tendency to be selfish and self centered, not just Americans. I think every country and culture has similar tendencies.
I understand that, but the reason I just said Americans is due to the fact that this thread is about an American "tragedy." I understand that 9/11 was a blow on America, but I feel that our nation needs to be more educated about other instances of events like this because we really are incredibly ignorant of the goings on of others, which leads to the extreme reverence of days like these. I don't think there was an anniversary rememberence day for Haiti, and that was over 100 times worse. Also, if there was, which there could have been, I doubt we will be giving a shit in 10 years and starting a memorial.
edit: Another example comparing apples to apples. Hurricane Katrina vs. the Earthquake in Haiti. We obviously give much more reverence to one that happened on American soil despite its death toll being 99 percent less than that of the earthquake in Haiti.
-
Question: Is 9/11 viewed as a massive tragedy outside of the United States? It's likely we put a greater emphasis on it because it happened to us. Perhaps people in other parts of the world don't place as much emphasis on it?
-
I understand the context is different, and that natural disasters are different from calculated attacks against civilians.
Okay. So, you asked the question, then answered it in the next paragraph. If you understand this, why did you use natural disasters as examples to make your point? Of course natural disasters are terrible - just remember that the U.S. gives billions in aid when that happens (you didn't mention that for some reason). When that Haiti earthquake happened, it was all over the news for months. Same with the tsunami.
But over 100,000 civilians have been killed in the Iraq War, something the United States has had a direct hand in starting
No, we didn't. The U.S. didn't give suicide vests to foreign terrorists (foreigners to Iraq, that is) or rocket launchers to terrorists and tell them to blow up civilians eating lunch or shopping or enjoying a day at the park or driving down the street, etc. These people were (and, are) extremists who didn't want to see democracy taking place in that country. But, there were a couple of major problems: 1) most of them weren't even Iraqi, so they had no say to begin with; 2) the majority of Iraqis WELCOMED democracy and took part in it. So, for you to say that, "the U.S. had a direct hand in 100,000 people getting killed" is ignorant, disingenuous, over-simplistic and pretty much just absurd.
-
I completely agree. It's just about the different perspectives of learning about history. American's are American oriented and selfish.
All people have a tendency to be selfish and self centered, not just Americans. I think every country and culture has similar tendencies.
I understand that, but the reason I just said Americans is due to the fact that this thread is about an American "tragedy." I understand that 9/11 was a blow on America, but I feel that our nation needs to be more educated about other instances of events like this because we really are incredibly ignorant of the goings on of others, which leads to the extreme reverence of days like these. I don't think there was an anniversary rememberence day for Haiti, and that was over 100 times worse. Also, if there was, which there could have been, I doubt we will be giving a shit in 10 years and starting a memorial.
Try to also realize that there are many great Americans who give of themselves unselfishly to help the unfortunate in the world. They are out there and many go unsung. A woman who I know very well have given the past 20 years of her life running an orphanage in Ghana.
Also, Americans reached out big time and gave with there hearts to the victims of Haiti. Many Americans gave unselfishly, there time, and money to help the people there.
A hurricane is not the same as a terrorist attack. People will not remember an act of nature 10 years later in the same fashion. Some however will still be giving of themselves to help that country rebuild 10 years from now.
-
I understand the context is different, and that natural disasters are different from calculated attacks against civilians.
Okay. So, you asked the question, then answered it in the next paragraph. If you understand this, why did you use natural disasters as examples to make your point? Of course natural disasters are terrible - just remember that the U.S. gives billions in aid when that happens (you didn't mention that for some reason). When that Haiti earthquake happened, it was all over the news for months. Same with the tsunami.
But over 100,000 civilians have been killed in the Iraq War, something the United States has had a direct hand in starting
No, we didn't. The U.S. didn't give suicide vests to foreign terrorists (foreigners to Iraq, that is) or rocket launchers to terrorists and tell them to blow up civilians eating lunch or shopping or enjoying a day at the park or driving down the street, etc. These people were (and, are) extremists who didn't want to see democracy taking place in that country. But, there were a couple of major problems: 1) most of them weren't even Iraqi, so they had no say to begin with; 2) the majority of Iraqis WELCOMED democracy and took part in it. So, for you to say that, "the U.S. had a direct hand in 100,000 people getting killed" is ignorant, disingenuous, over-simplistic and pretty much just absurd.
When you start a war, you are AT LEAST partially responsible for all the horrible things that come from it. And that's being very generous in this case.
-
Not to mention the 10,000+ civilians which were killed by coalition forces.
-
Watched a documentary on 9/11 today with a friend from Pakistan and another from Nigeria. Was real interesting, to say the least. Basically, they where making anti-American quips 30 seconds, even about people just talking about how the lost a friend in the attacks and whatnot, which was too much for me to handle.
But, you know, I can't help agreeing with one thing about all that. The biggest tragedy of all about 9/11 is not that all those people died. It's that all those people died and we as a nation, ten years later, have still given serious consideration as to why.
Ten years and pointless cowboying around the Middle East later, I can't help but feeling like the 9/11 story has finally completed it's full evolution into a Hollywood movie. Any meaning the day may have had for me has been drowned out in endless hollywood sentiment and a refusal to actually approach the tradegy in any real critical-thinking or enlightened capacity.
-
No, we didn't. The U.S. didn't give suicide vests to foreign terrorists (foreigners to Iraq, that is) or rocket launchers to terrorists and tell them to blow up civilians eating lunch or shopping or enjoying a day at the park or driving down the street, etc. These people were (and, are) extremists who didn't want to see democracy taking place in that country. But, there were a couple of major problems: 1) most of them weren't even Iraqi, so they had no say to begin with; 2) the majority of Iraqis WELCOMED democracy and took part in it. So, for you to say that, "the U.S. had a direct hand in 100,000 people getting killed" is ignorant, disingenuous, over-simplistic and pretty much just absurd.
Ye Gods!
As for the OP, I suppose it's human nature to appreciate those more related to you than others. Personally, I've never gotten it. I don't understand what makes an American death more horrible than the death of a starving African, but it is and that's that. I'm sure the Africans would feel the same way.
-
No, we didn't. The U.S. didn't give suicide vests to foreign terrorists (foreigners to Iraq, that is) or rocket launchers to terrorists and tell them to blow up civilians eating lunch or shopping or enjoying a day at the park or driving down the street, etc. These people were (and, are) extremists who didn't want to see democracy taking place in that country. But, there were a couple of major problems: 1) most of them weren't even Iraqi, so they had no say to begin with; 2) the majority of Iraqis WELCOMED democracy and took part in it. So, for you to say that, "the U.S. had a direct hand in 100,000 people getting killed" is ignorant, disingenuous, over-simplistic and pretty much just absurd.
Ye Gods!
As for the OP, I suppose it's human nature to appreciate those more related to you than others. Personally, I've never gotten it. I don't understand what makes an American death more horrible than the death of a starving African, but it is and that's that. I'm sure the Africans would feel the same way.
How do you equate 9/11 to staving Africans? There are plenty of staving Americans that most Americans don't give two shits about. People are desensitized to such issues. How many homeless roam the streets of America everyday? Its seen as a cold stark reality, that as I say, people desensitize themselves to so they can selfishly go about buying apps for there I Phones, and keep enjoying the world that revolves around themselves. Sad but true.
I am guilty myself in sooo many ways.
-
Well, if you want terrorism, look at how America was founded. Trying to demolish the Natives way of life, to conform to the American way, in any way possible. That is terrorism to its fullest.
-
There is a large difference between a natural disaster and a terrorist atrocity.
-
There is a large difference between a natural disaster and a terrorist atrocity.
I don't disagree.
But at what point does the death toll of a natural disaster become more tragic than a man-made one? 5 times? 10 times? 100 times?
And how do the deaths of non-Americans scale to the deaths of Americans?
-
To address the OP, I think a big part of it is how the attacks happened. Multiple passenger jet airlines were hijacked and flown into two of the tallest, most famous buildings in the world. It could have been straight out of an action flick. The images were so visceral.
-
Basically, its human nature. What's sad is the way people acted after, the division and seclusion of a people. The hate towards the innocent not involved is astounding, that just makes you exactly like them.
-
I don't think American exceptionalism plays into it, simply the human "us vs them" mentality that too many people never question. It's sick and wrong.
So, for you to say that, "the U.S. had a direct hand in 100,000 people getting killed" is ignorant, disingenuous, over-simplistic and pretty much just absurd.
Lol, someone imagining that the US isn't responsible for the aftermath of our actions is "ignorant, disingenuous, over simplistic and pretty much just absurd." You don't have to be intentionally doing something to be responsible, you're intentionally only matters in determining the punishment, not the responsibility.
-
Ten years and pointless cowboying around the Middle East later, I can't help but feeling like the 9/11 story has finally completed it's full evolution into a Hollywood movie. Any meaning the day may have had for me has been drowned out in endless hollywood sentiment and a refusal to actually approach the tradegy in any real critical-thinking or enlightened capacity.
Indeed.
I saw this article on Al Jazeera called, "Let's forget 9/11"
from the article:
Ask yourself this: ten years into the post-9/11 era, haven't we had enough of ourselves? If we have any respect for history or humanity or decency left, isn't it time to rip the Band-Aid off the wound, to remove 9/11 from our collective consciousness? No more invocations of those attacks to explain otherwise inexplicable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our oh-so-global war on terror. No more invocations of 9/11 to keep the Pentagon and the national security state flooded with money. No more invocations of 9/11 to justify every encroachment on liberty, every new step in the surveillance of Americans, every advance in pat-downs and wand-downs and strip downs that keeps fear high and the homeland security state afloat.
The attacks of September 11, 2001 were in every sense abusive, horrific acts. And the saddest thing is that the victims of those suicidal monstrosities have been misused here ever since under the guise of pious remembrance. This country has become dependent on the dead of 9/11 - who have no way of defending themselves against how they have been used - as an all-purpose explanation for our own goodness and the horrors we've visited on others, for the many towers-worth of dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere whose blood is on our hands.
Isn't it finally time to go cold turkey? To let go of the dead? Why keep repeating our 9/11 mantra as if it were some kind of old-time religion, when we've proven that we, as a nation, can't handle it - and worse yet, that we don't deserve it?
We would have been better off consigning our memories of 9/11 to oblivion, forgetting it all if only we could. We can't, of course. But we could stop the anniversary remembrances. We could stop invoking 9/11 in every imaginable way so many years later. We could stop using it to make ourselves feel like a far better country than we are. We could, in short, leave the dead in peace and take a good, hard look at ourselves, the living, in the nearest mirror.
https://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011910125513799497.html
I think this is why today has been upsetting me. I couldn't quite put my finger on it but it explains why I've been getting a little upset today whenever I see people talking about "protecting our freedom" and proclaiming GOD BLESS AMERICA all over Facebook. I just can't use this day as an excuse to feel good about a country I have no business feeling good about. It feels so fake to me.
-
But at what point does the death toll of a natural disaster become more tragic than a man-made one? 5 times? 10 times? 100 times?
What do you mean "more tragic?" I don't understand the dichotomy. No matter how large a death toll is from from an earthquake, a hurricane, or a tsunami, they still remain natural disasters and as such unavoidable. They can strike without warning at any time almost anywhere, and as such are part of the natural order of things. The loss of life is no less tragic, but the events themselves aren't atrocities like terrorist attacks.
And how do the deaths of non-Americans scale to the deaths of Americans?
There is no difference objectively. But it makes sense that the events of 9/11 would register more with Americans than anyone else, or any such event in Britain or Japan should register more with them.
-
But at what point does the death toll of a natural disaster become more tragic than a man-made one? 5 times? 10 times? 100 times?
What do you mean "more tragic?" I don't understand the dichotomy. No matter how large a death toll is from from an earthquake, a hurricane, or a tsunami, they still remain natural disasters and as such unavoidable. They can strike without warning at any time almost anywhere, and as such are part of the natural order of things. The loss of life is no less tragic, but the events themselves aren't atrocities like terrorist attacks.
I don't get how human actions aren't natural. It's natural to expect retaliation when you oppress people. It's natural for humans to fight each other, and to kill each other. War is the natural order of things. We "could" avoid natural disasters by living in different area's, building different housing, etc; perhaps the atrocity for something like Haiti is that the people lived in such poverty, and their housing was of such poor build, that so much was damaged, and so many people died.
-
Someone of FB was saying how he can't believe there are people who aren't flying an American flag today. Feel free to be patriotic, but putting other people down because they aren't...that's just...not good.
-
I don't think we should forget 9/11, but like Englehardt said, we should stop using it to make ourselves feel like a better country than we are.
-
Not sure how on-topic this is, but I feel I need to address this anyway:
The worst part of about the 9/11 attacks is that the terrorists won by default after the overreaction of the western community. Especially the US.
If one accepts the notion that the motive of the terrorists was that we have freedoms and they don't like our way of living, then we should not surrender those freedoms for the reason of counter-terrorism - that is a win for the terrorist. However, the fact of the matter is that the real motive is the interventionism that has been going on for decades and decades.
What they want to do, is that they want to bring the U.S. and the western world to a collapse. Here is how it works: By injecting fear into the populous through terrorist attacks, this creates an uncertainty and a sense of insecurity - which in turn also leads to people accepting diminishing civil liberties for counter-terrorism purposes, even if it turns the justice system into mob rule. The fear can also lead to a revenge-seeking foreign policy with more interventions and increased spending - which hurts the economy.
Their ultimate goal isn't to kill as many Americans or westerners as possible. If that was their goal, they would most likely primarily be relying on biological warfare and not attacking transportation. The main reason is creating a climate where people fear the terrorists. Further occupation doesn't help, it only worsens the prognosis for further attacks.
To the OP:
American exceptionalism has nothing to do with 9/11. It did bring a mentality of Us vs. Them though, as previously mentioned in the thread. It's very harmful and has done the post-9/11 world little to no good. The reason it got so huge is because of the iconic twin towers falling had a deep psychological impact, it was a supposed message from the terrorists saying "we're here and we can attack you at any time" thus making people frightened. Terrorist attacks from jihadists hadn't happened in a similar fashion in the west before, so the phenomenon was rather new - thus the reaction.
-
But at what point does the death toll of a natural disaster become more tragic than a man-made one? 5 times? 10 times? 100 times?
What do you mean "more tragic?" I don't understand the dichotomy. No matter how large a death toll is from from an earthquake, a hurricane, or a tsunami, they still remain natural disasters and as such unavoidable. They can strike without warning at any time almost anywhere, and as such are part of the natural order of things. The loss of life is no less tragic, but the events themselves aren't atrocities like terrorist attacks.
I don't get how human actions aren't natural. It's natural to expect retaliation when you oppress people. It's natural for humans to fight each other, and to kill each other. War is the natural order of things. We "could" avoid natural disasters by living in different area's, building different housing, etc; perhaps the atrocity for something like Haiti is that the people lived in such poverty, and their housing was of such poor build, that so much was damaged, and so many people died.
The difference is that humans are free to choose their actions. That's why an atrocity is different than a natural disaster. A hurricane doesn't choose to hit a populated area, it just happens. And you can't avoid natural disasters by living in different areas; you just get different disasters to which you are potentially exposed.
-
Watched a documentary on 9/11 today with a friend from Pakistan and another from Nigeria. Was real interesting, to say the least. Basically, they where making anti-American quips 30 seconds, even about people just talking about how the lost a friend in the attacks and whatnot, which was too much for me to handle.
This really doesn't surprise me at all. In the last two years, I've had flatmates from Germany, Chile, Northern Ireland, Romania, China and Indonesia. All were interns at United Nations and DHL, so through them and my own friends, the range of nationalities I've come into contact with in recent times is huge. All these people befriend each other with no regard for nationality. I still remember a party where they were discussing one Thai intern who was anti-Chinese. Everyone was disgusted. And yet in all my experience, anti-American sentiment is almost universal.
And I'd say it has a lot to do with American exceptionalism (I dunno if this is a common phrase or if the OP just coined it, but it fits). Whether it is actually the case or not, and whether they like it or not, Americans come across as believing that American suffering and deaths are exceptionally tragic, American heroes are exceptionally heroic, American aid during wars, conflicts, and disasters is exceptionally significant and admirable, American culture is exceptional amongst world cultures, and so on, and God help you if you don't see it the same way.
I've gone far out of my way to avoid seeing any 9/11 commemorations this year because I dread what has been made of them. I'm all for letting people mourn those who died and suffered, but I don't think I could stand to sit through the latest episode in the "Feel Sad for Poor Wounded America and Feel Pride in How She Overcomes" Show.
-
But at what point does the death toll of a natural disaster become more tragic than a man-made one? 5 times? 10 times? 100 times?
What do you mean "more tragic?" I don't understand the dichotomy. No matter how large a death toll is from from an earthquake, a hurricane, or a tsunami, they still remain natural disasters and as such unavoidable. They can strike without warning at any time almost anywhere, and as such are part of the natural order of things. The loss of life is no less tragic, but the events themselves aren't atrocities like terrorist attacks.
I don't get how human actions aren't natural. It's natural to expect retaliation when you oppress people. It's natural for humans to fight each other, and to kill each other. War is the natural order of things. We "could" avoid natural disasters by living in different area's, building different housing, etc; perhaps the atrocity for something like Haiti is that the people lived in such poverty, and their housing was of such poor build, that so much was damaged, and so many people died.
The difference is that humans are free to choose their actions. That's why an atrocity is different than a natural disaster. A hurricane doesn't choose to hit a populated area, it just happens. And you can't avoid natural disasters by living in different areas; you just get different disasters to which you are potentially exposed.
You can certainly mitigate the (potential) damage done by them, and the amount to which you do this is dependent upon choice. The earth quake which hit japan was massive, yet the Earthquake itself wasn't a problem.
And so what if the act was voluntary? Some things should be expected, free will or not. If you go up an punch someone in the face, that person could freely choose to hug you... but do you honestly think that will happen? As a country, we've been pretty much doing this for at least 60 years now, and we're surprised when we get a punch to the face. 9/11, or something like it, was as natural as a bear shitting in the woods.
-
I don't think the vast majority of Americans think they're exceptional in an egotistical way. But they are aware that they are the center of the world's attention for so many reasons, some of which are America's doing and some aren't. Set aside that most of the media the world is exposed to is American and I mean just entertainment, not political matters.
If a roof collapses in a class at Harvard and kills some people it would certainly get more attention even if more people were killed the same way at community college in some little town. Which one will get national attention and therefore more sympathy just through the exposure to the story on the news? I understand where tick is coming from cause I don't expect the people at Harvard to be wondering "Why are we so upset when a worse incident happened there?" because all the givens resulted in them getting all the attention in the conclusion.
With all due respect to Michael Jackson; someone else must have died that same day. We all remember how the reaction was.
-
And I'd say it has a lot to do with American exceptionalism (I dunno if this is a common phrase or if the OP just coined it, but it fits). Whether it is actually the case or not, and whether they like it or not, Americans come across as believing that American suffering and deaths are exceptionally tragic, American heroes are exceptionally heroic, American aid during wars, conflicts, and disasters is exceptionally significant and admirable, American culture is exceptional amongst world cultures, and so on, and God help you if you don't see it the same way.
I agree with this, but I don't think it's any different than anybody else. I'd bet that the people of Angola are just as gung-ho about Angolan stuff.
-
I don't even think it's just the nationality, but people care more about things that are closer to them - whether that's culturally or geographically.
-
It's really cool that when I clicked this thread, I happened to arrive at Prophets of War in my Systematic Chaos playthrough. :hat
-
I think the reason why 9/11 hit Americans so hard was the element of surprise. We were not really at war with anyone. There wasn't really any indication that we were in danger. Had there been threats, or small events leading people to believe we were at risk, I don't think it would have been as big of a shock. Other countries with heavy casualties from attacks, usually have it in the back of their minds that it is a possiblitly. An attack like the ones on 9/11 were not even thought possible by most Americans. It wasnt just the attacks themselves, but the way they were carried out. Had a bomb been brought into the country, that would be one thing. But these attacks were carried out by people who used our schools to learn their dirty work. Got through what Americans thought was tight security. Took control over one of the hardest vehicles to stop. Then proceeded to slam them into the most iconic buildings in our country. Then the fact that a tradgedy happened, only to be repeated minutes later was very moving to some. Having the same attack happen twice and having double the destruction made it seem much more devistating than say if the emire state building was struck.
-
I mean we did have problems with Iraq all throughout the '90s. I know it's unrelated, but it's not like we *didn't* have people pissed off at us that we could expect something like that from.
-
Personally, I don't see anything wrong or selfish about the general sentiment about 9/11 in this country. Yes, there is a lot of focus on it, and more so than other recent events that have had a higher death toll. But it's not about the numbers. It's the fact that, (1) it is an event that happened to the United States, and (2) as Hef put it, it takes on a different light when it is not a natural disaster, but rather a terrorist atrocity. I think point #2 has already been discussed adequately. I want to focus on #1 for just a second.
To me, it's kinda like if a member of your own family is killed. There are all kinds of tragedies all around us every day. And we all feel for the victims of those tragedies to varying degrees. But even if we just hear about a disaster killing thousands, it is perfectly natural to be more emotional and feel a greater impact when a tragedy happens to a member of our own family. We have a bond with that person that makes that person's tragedy hit us a lot harder. I see nothing wrong with that phenomenon on a national level either. Yes, it truly is a tragedy when, for example, 300,000 people die in an earthquake in Haiti. And that's why many have donated their time, money, and/or other resources to help. But that still isn't going to hit most people as hard as when something happens to people in this country simply because we share a common bond with our own countrymen, even if it is more of a tenuous one, than we share with people outside our country. Of course, that can be taken to extremes. But there's nothing wrong with the fact that we share that bond and that, as a result, many of us take the 9/11 tragedy very seriously. In fact, it saddens me that there are more and more people in this day and age who do NOT feel that bond and somehow think it is a negative thing for those of us that do.
-
I have to say that this thread has pretty much disgusted me through and through.
Bottom line is this. America was attacked on 9/11/01, muslim extremists hijacked four civilian airliners and turned them into missiles, destroying two of the most prominant buildings in the world. They also struck at and did great damage to the Pentagon, and no one will really know for sure I don't think the EXACT target of the airliner that passengers tried to take back and crashed into Pensylvania. America was not at war with anyone at the time, we did not strike out in a military fashion at Osama or any country that AlQueda was involved with. Hell, we had no idea as a nation who the fuck AlQueda even was until after 9/11. So if you are not American then you really have no fucking clue what it means to us as Americans so all your supposition, interpretation and opinions on the matter do not add up to dried shit. Those of us that lost family members or friends in an un-provoked, cowardly attack (yes it WAS cowardly, taking a few brainwashed jihadists and getting them to fly a plane into a building doesnt mean they are courageous, just stupid and menatlly weak) on Soveregn American soil have every right to have emotional feelings about this day. Those Americans that did not lose anyone directly have every fucking right to be proud of our country, stand up for for thier belief in freedom. And those Americans that either think we are completely wrong, or are disgusted by us as a nation, well, I support your right to have those feelings. American men and women have died to support your right to protest at the private funerals of fallen American soldiers and I for one am glad that you HAVE the freedom to say what I think is disrespectful bullshit.
If you are just an American hater, well as the saying goes, "Haters gonna hate, no matter what" so nothing I can really do to change your mind.
-
There's abolutely nothing wrong with remembering a tragic day in our countries history. Just because it a insignificant in terms of the number dead versus various other attrocities (natural or otherwise) around the world doesn't mean it isn't worth remembering. It's OK for some things to be more personal than others. Hell, a close relative of mine dying is going to affect me more than 300,000 people being killed a world away. That's just the way it is.
However I'm tired of the whole "everything changed on 9/11" thing. I'm tired of using 9/11 as an excuse for military actions, defense spending, crazy security policies, etc. It's been ten years. Let's remember the dead and honor the sacrifices of the heroes on that day. It was a horrible event that I will never forget. But it's time to rise up and show those who wish to harm us that they're not going to take away what makes America so great. Unfortunately in a lot of ways they succeeded in that regard.
-
I think the reason why 9/11 hit Americans so hard was the element of surprise. We were not really at war with anyone. There wasn't really any indication that we were in danger. Had there been threats, or small events leading people to believe we were at risk, I don't think it would have been as big of a shock. Other countries with heavy casualties from attacks, usually have it in the back of their minds that it is a possiblitly. An attack like the ones on 9/11 were not even thought possible by most Americans. It wasnt just the attacks themselves, but the way they were carried out. Had a bomb been brought into the country, that would be one thing. But these attacks were carried out by people who used our schools to learn their dirty work. Got through what Americans thought was tight security. Took control over one of the hardest vehicles to stop. Then proceeded to slam them into the most iconic buildings in our country. Then the fact that a tradgedy happened, only to be repeated minutes later was very moving to some. Having the same attack happen twice and having double the destruction made it seem much more devistating than say if the emire state building was struck.
Actually, that might actually qualify as an aspect of the American exceptionalism that we're discussing. One of the things that bothered me about what happened was all of these people asking why? Americans had become highly complacent, based on the misconception that we were too big, bad, strong, whatever, to be attacked. We'd made plenty of enemies trying to obtain that status, and there's no such thing as big, bad, or strong enough keep somebody from wanting to bust you in the nose. The fact that so many people couldn't imagine why somebody would want to attack was a big part of the problem, me thinks.
As for act of God vs. deliberate attack that so many people are discussing, I fail to see how it matters. Aside from a bit of embarrassment, that is.
-
I think the reason why 9/11 hit Americans so hard was the element of surprise. We were not really at war with anyone. There wasn't really any indication that we were in danger. Had there been threats, or small events leading people to believe we were at risk, I don't think it would have been as big of a shock. Other countries with heavy casualties from attacks, usually have it in the back of their minds that it is a possiblitly. An attack like the ones on 9/11 were not even thought possible by most Americans. It wasnt just the attacks themselves, but the way they were carried out. Had a bomb been brought into the country, that would be one thing. But these attacks were carried out by people who used our schools to learn their dirty work. Got through what Americans thought was tight security. Took control over one of the hardest vehicles to stop. Then proceeded to slam them into the most iconic buildings in our country. Then the fact that a tradgedy happened, only to be repeated minutes later was very moving to some. Having the same attack happen twice and having double the destruction made it seem much more devistating than say if the emire state building was struck.
Actually, that might actually qualify as an aspect of the American exceptionalism that we're discussing. One of the things that bothered me about what happened was all of these people asking why? Americans had become highly complacent, based on the misconception that we were too big, bad, strong, whatever, to be attacked. We'd made plenty of enemies trying to obtain that status, and there's no such thing as big, bad, or strong enough keep somebody from wanting to bust you in the nose. The fact that so many people couldn't imagine why somebody would want to attack was a big part of the problem, me thinks.
As for act of God vs. deliberate attack that so many people are discussing, I fail to see how it matters. Aside from a bit of embarrassment, that is.
I didn't feel though America was big, bad, and strong.... But I did feel safe. But seeing an unprecedented event occur twice, side by side, made me feel not so safe anymore. I think e majority of Americans felt the same way. Remembering 9/11 helps remind Americans that while we may not be as safe as we think, and while we all have or differences with each other, we are still a country that needs to work together. If thousands of memorial services is what it takes, then so be it.
-
I have to say that this thread has pretty much disgusted me through and through.
Bottom line is this. America was attacked on 9/11/01, muslim extremists hijacked four civilian airliners and turned them into missiles, destroying two of the most prominant buildings in the world. They also struck at and did great damage to the Pentagon, and no one will really know for sure I don't think the EXACT target of the airliner that passengers tried to take back and crashed into Pensylvania. America was not at war with anyone at the time, we did not strike out in a military fashion at Osama or any country that AlQueda was involved with. Hell, we had no idea as a nation who the fuck AlQueda even was until after 9/11. So if you are not American then you really have no fucking clue what it means to us as Americans so all your supposition, interpretation and opinions on the matter do not add up to dried shit. Those of us that lost family members or friends in an un-provoked, cowardly attack (yes it WAS cowardly, taking a few brainwashed jihadists and getting them to fly a plane into a building doesnt mean they are courageous, just stupid and menatlly weak) on Soveregn American soil have every right to have emotional feelings about this day. Those Americans that did not lose anyone directly have every fucking right to be proud of our country, stand up for for thier belief in freedom. And those Americans that either think we are completely wrong, or are disgusted by us as a nation, well, I support your right to have those feelings. American men and women have died to support your right to protest at the private funerals of fallen American soldiers and I for one am glad that you HAVE the freedom to say what I think is disrespectful bullshit.
If you are just an American hater, well as the saying goes, "Haters gonna hate, no matter what" so nothing I can really do to change your mind.
Right on.. Let us not forget the first attack on the WTC.. for those of us who work and live in the NYC area we lost so much, and so did our country, if the moron Clinton had done his job it would never havve gotten to the point we were so vulnerable..
GOD BLESS AMERICA...
The comments and ignorance I read by some in this thread makes me sick.. but Im not suprised.. typical..
-
I think the reason why 9/11 hit Americans so hard was the element of surprise. We were not really at war with anyone.
I'm sorry, but this is just completely false. Anyone who really knows History should not be shocked or surprised that 9/11 happened.
BC
-
Really though, why wouldn't America make a huge deal out of the most devastating attack on the country in its history? What do really think should happen every year? Seriously.
-
Really though, why wouldn't America make a huge deal out of the most devastating attack on the country in its history? What do really think should happen every year? Seriously.
This isn't true either. I would argue that the British storming our country and burning the Capital to the ground was a bit more devastating to such a young country. The President had to flee the White House for crying out loud! :D
BC
-
There's a huge difference between deaths caused by natural disasters and innocence being attacked by terrorists. 9/11 was a deliberate act and affected people from 90 different countries. I also don't buy into this God Bless America crap either. What about the other countries that have suffered needless loss due to terrorism? What about God Bless the World? God Bless America is stupid, selfish, arrogant bullshit and I'm sick to fucking death of it.
-
I feel like people totally forget that we commemorate the anniversary of Pearl Harbor every year as well, and that was about 70 years ago now. Perhaps we should just get over it and forget about that attack too? It's ok to reflect and remember and honor those who died. Nothing wrong with that.
-
Really though, why wouldn't America make a huge deal out of the most devastating attack on the country in its history? What do really think should happen every year? Seriously.
This isn't true either. I would argue that the British storming our country and burning the Capital to the ground was a bit more devastating to such a young country. The President had to flee the White House for crying out loud! :D
BC
I don't agree. We were fighting to be independent. It really wasn't totally our country at that point. That's why it was a fight for independence.
-
Really though, why wouldn't America make a huge deal out of the most devastating attack on the country in its history? What do really think should happen every year? Seriously.
This isn't true either. I would argue that the British storming our country and burning the Capital to the ground was a bit more devastating to such a young country. The President had to flee the White House for crying out loud! :D
BC
I don't agree. We were fighting to be independent. It really wasn't totally our country at that point. That's why it was a fight for independence.
We were already the United States of America by that point.
I'm not really sure if you are trolling here, but your knowledge of History is a little frightening if you think that the so called War of 1812 was a war for Independence, or that there was a White House during the Revolutionary War.
BC
-
Revenge for York!
-
Bedwetting Cosmonaut, the tone of your posts is incredibly condescending and belittling. You are free to argue whatever points you wish based on your knowledge of history. But to belittle what you perceive to be others' lack of knowledge of history is just a personal attack, plain and simple. That needs to stop.
-
Bedwetting Cosmonaut, the tone of your posts is incredibly condescending and belittling. You are free to argue whatever points you wish based on your knowledge of history. But to belittle what you perceive to be others' lack of knowledge of history is just a personal attack, plain and simple. That needs to stop.
My apologies, Lord Vader.
-
Bedwetting Cosmonaut, the tone of your posts is incredibly condescending and belittling. You are free to argue whatever points you wish based on your knowledge of history. But to belittle what you perceive to be others' lack of knowledge of history is just a personal attack, plain and simple. That needs to stop.
My apologies, Lord Vader.
Apology accepted, Captain Needa.
-
I feel like people totally forget that we commemorate the anniversary of Pearl Harbor every year as well, and that was about 70 years ago now. Perhaps we should just get over it and forget about that attack too? It's ok to reflect and remember and honor those who died. Nothing wrong with that.
I agree, but, there's a huge difference between how we remember and honor those who died at Pearl and that shit we had yesterday.
-
Why is 911 called a terrorist attack and Pearl Harbor isn't?
BC
-
I feel like people totally forget that we commemorate the anniversary of Pearl Harbor every year as well, and that was about 70 years ago now. Perhaps we should just get over it and forget about that attack too? It's ok to reflect and remember and honor those who died. Nothing wrong with that.
I agree, but, there's a huge difference between how we remember and honor those who died at Pearl and that shit we had yesterday.
Honestly I didn't watch a thing from yesterday. I have no idea what went on. Just didn't catch any of it. I hate how politicians seem to be using it as fuel for campaigns. That is my biggest beef. Actually, my beef isn't with 9/11 and remembering it. I have no problem with pride for your country and patriotism. My biggest problem is that our government and politicians are jokes of people.
-
Why is 911 called a terrorist attack and Pearl Harbor isn't?
BC
9/11 wasn't committed by a state, and was intentionally designed to kill civilians. The attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack by a state on military targets.
Though Pearl Harbour (not really the attack itself, but rather how American society before it is remembered) is another example of a whitewashing of American history.
-
Why is 911 called a terrorist attack and Pearl Harbor isn't?
BC
Because FDR didn't need to invent a new paradigm with which to exploit the attack.
-
Why is 911 called a terrorist attack and Pearl Harbor isn't?
BC
Because FDR didn't need to invent a new paradigm with which to exploit the attack.
Good call there, man. He seemingly didn't need justification to lock up the minorities that "happened" to be of the same race/religion of the attackers..
BC
-
His justification, right or wrong, was that we were in a formal state of war with Tojo, and by extension Adolph and Benito. No such state existed after 911, so TPTB invented one.
-
Actually, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.
Which is a good thing, because even after Pearl Harbour, FDR would've had a tough time getting the US public to go along with a war against Germany.
-
In fact, it saddens me that there are more and more people in this day and age who do NOT feel that bond and somehow think it is a negative thing for those of us that do.
You can probably blame politics and the government itself. I mean, how can you expect young people to be proud when, no matter who's president, half of the population is screaming that they're the devil incarnate and source of all our woe? When was the last time we had a president who wasn't considered to be that by the other party? I grew up being taught that Clinton was a scumbag, and by the time I was a teenager I was able to tell no one had any respect for Bush either. And now that Obama's in office, it's the same. How can we expect the next generation to be "proud" to be American when are willing to demonize the president in front of them (so long as it's from whatever party we're not a member of). I think we can chalk losing that sense of national pride and faith in the government as another victim of the unending partisan nonsense. Case and point:
Let us not forget the first attack on the WTC.. for those of us who work and live in the NYC area we lost so much, and so did our country, if the moron Clinton had done his job it would never havve gotten to the point we were so vulnerable..
-
I'm not saying there isn't blame to be passed around on a lot of different fronts. While that may be true, it still doesn't take away from the fact that it is sad that there are more and more people in this day and age who do NOT feel that bond and somehow think it is a negative thing for those of us that do.
-
I'm not saying it's not sad. But I'm having a hard time coming up with other people to blame, tbh.
-
To clarify, I'm just saying that I think "blame" is irrelevant.
-
I'm not saying there isn't blame to be passed around on a lot of different fronts. While that may be true, it still doesn't take away from the fact that it is sad that there are more and more people in this day and age who do NOT feel that bond and somehow think it is a negative thing for those of us that do.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you, because I do. At the same time though, I can understand why people aren't as patriotic anymore. The world has changed so much the last few decades, and your country isn't the only thing you have anymore. Business, communications, everyday purchases, etc... have all become so globalized, it's hard for people to not acknowledge other countries. A few decades ago, the citizens loved this country, we thought we were the best, and in reality to a large degree were the best. It's no secret today that the US has fallen behind in a lot of areas. We don't produce anything anymore. Our kids are lazy. We are no longer ahead of the technology curve. Our education system is so out of whack it isn't funny. I can get why many people (maybe subconciously) aren't praising America and maybe aren't "proud to be an American". It's twisted.
-
I'm not saying there isn't blame to be passed around on a lot of different fronts. While that may be true, it still doesn't take away from the fact that it is sad that there are more and more people in this day and age who do NOT feel that bond and somehow think it is a negative thing for those of us that do.
It's not that I don't feel any bond. I just find that the strength of that bond to be what's so puzzling. I get that I share a common history with 300m other people, and that we share other similarities. Yet that doesn't preclude me from seeing them as the type of person that they are. Some good, others bad. Some right, others wrong. Some heroic, others cowardly. It seems like there are a ton of those 300m who absolutely blinded by that bond, and that bothers me. My hometown football team are a bunch of assholes. The majority of my state's population have character issues that trouble me deeply. Not every single person in the military is deserving of our support. America isn't always right. Even in the relatively small sampling that is DTF, we're seeing some of that black/white mentality that can't see the bigger picture beyond that common bond.
-
@Chino and El Barto: Again, I'm not saying character flaws should be disregarded, and I'm not necessarily talking about having a strong sense of patriotism. I'm just saying, (1) to me, it is understandable that we in America should react more strongly to an attack on our home turf than a natural disaster somewhere else because we share a more direct common bond with those in this country, and (2) to me, it is sad that some (not all) don't see that bond as valid. Barto, you raise good points about that bond, but I am not making it out to be as black and white as what you are indicating. I merely say that it exists and, to me, should be acknowledged--not that it should blind us from problems that need fixing.
-
I just want to say these last 3 posts have been very well written and thought out.
-
@Chino and El Barto: Again, I'm not saying character flaws should be disregarded, and I'm not necessarily talking about having a strong sense of patriotism. I'm just saying, (1) to me, it is understandable that we in America should react more strongly to an attack on our home turf than a natural disaster somewhere else because we share a more direct common bond with those in this country, and (2) to me, it is sad that some (not all) don't see that bond as valid. Barto, you raise good points about that bond, but I am not making it out to be as black and white as what you are indicating. I merely say that it exists and, to me, should be acknowledged--not that it should blind us from problems that need fixing.
Oh I agree with you. As I've said, I think it's human nature, and not exclusive to America. I also wasn't directing that at you. Really, the only difference is that while you think it's sad that so many don't feel the connection, I think it's sad that so many feel it so strongly, to the exclusion of common sense.
-
Cool. Gotcha.
-
I read Antigoons link and that's exactly how I feel about 9/11. Its an excuse basically, and their using the dead as a crutch. It shoudnt take a day to remember, as they are all in the hearts of their loved ones.
-
@Chino and El Barto: Again, I'm not saying character flaws should be disregarded, and I'm not necessarily talking about having a strong sense of patriotism. I'm just saying, (1) to me, it is understandable that we in America should react more strongly to an attack on our home turf than a natural disaster somewhere else because we share a more direct common bond with those in this country, and (2) to me, it is sad that some (not all) don't see that bond as valid. Barto, you raise good points about that bond, but I am not making it out to be as black and white as what you are indicating. I merely say that it exists and, to me, should be acknowledged--not that it should blind us from problems that need fixing.
Oh I agree with you. As I've said, I think it's human nature, and not exclusive to America. I also wasn't directing that at you. Really, the only difference is that while you think it's sad that so many don't feel the connection, I think it's sad that so many feel it so strongly, to the exclusion of common sense.
Well that is the connundruum isn't it? Those that feel the patriotic pull and pride in our great and (yes at times, seriously flawed) wonderful nation are equally puzzled at how people that live here, enjoy the benefits of living here, yet feel no sense of belonging or pride of being a part of this country...
Look at it this way, if you had a sister who had some flaws, but was still your sister, yet someone else was calling her a whore I would hope that you would still have strong enough feelings to defend her and stand up for her. Perhaps not the most ideally or eloquently stated analogy but one that I feel is similar.
For those of us old enough to have been alive and in the workforce in America (not in elementary school and not really capable of grasping the full ramifications of the attack) 9/11 is one of those days that gripped us and is one we will never forget. It is one of those defining moments in every generation where people stop and reflect and thank their god for family, freinds and freedom and grieve the losses of fellow Americans.
-
@Chino and El Barto: Again, I'm not saying character flaws should be disregarded, and I'm not necessarily talking about having a strong sense of patriotism. I'm just saying, (1) to me, it is understandable that we in America should react more strongly to an attack on our home turf than a natural disaster somewhere else because we share a more direct common bond with those in this country, and (2) to me, it is sad that some (not all) don't see that bond as valid. Barto, you raise good points about that bond, but I am not making it out to be as black and white as what you are indicating. I merely say that it exists and, to me, should be acknowledged--not that it should blind us from problems that need fixing.
Oh I agree with you. As I've said, I think it's human nature, and not exclusive to America. I also wasn't directing that at you. Really, the only difference is that while you think it's sad that so many don't feel the connection, I think it's sad that so many feel it so strongly, to the exclusion of common sense.
Look at it this way, if you had a sister who had some flaws, but was still your sister, yet someone else was calling her a whore I would hope that you would still have strong enough feelings to defend her and stand up for her. Perhaps not the most ideally or eloquently stated analogy but one that I feel is similar.
makes enough sense.
but because your sister is your sister isn't a reason to like her at all. she's some girl who came out of the same general mess of genes as you. if you happen to like her then great. if she's got some serious flaws then why not dislike her?
too often i hear people say "well if you don't like it then get out" (not that i've heard it here) (also i am talking about america now and not my sister you SICK FUCK) but that's not really what most, er, "unpatriotic" people such as myself want. we want to stay and either change things or just bitch about stuff on forums forever
either one
-
I think the reason why 9/11 hit Americans so hard was the element of surprise. We were not really at war with anyone. There wasn't really any indication that we were in danger. Had there been threats, or small events leading people to believe we were at risk, I don't think it would have been as big of a shock. Other countries with heavy casualties from attacks, usually have it in the back of their minds that it is a possiblitly. An attack like the ones on 9/11 were not even thought possible by most Americans. It wasnt just the attacks themselves, but the way they were carried out. Had a bomb been brought into the country, that would be one thing. But these attacks were carried out by people who used our schools to learn their dirty work. Got through what Americans thought was tight security. Took control over one of the hardest vehicles to stop. Then proceeded to slam them into the most iconic buildings in our country. Then the fact that a tradgedy happened, only to be repeated minutes later was very moving to some. Having the same attack happen twice and having double the destruction made it seem much more devistating than say if the emire state building was struck.
I'm sorry, but you can only say this if you ignore world events leading up to 9/11. First of all, the WTC had been bombed in '93 (I'll ignore Oklahoma City just because it was done by different people / movement ), there was the USS Cole, there were numerous embassy bombings around the world. We weren't technically at War with anyone (hell, we're still not technically at war with most people!), but it's blind and ignorant to think that 9/11 happened out of nowhere, and that no one should have seen it coming. We had the intelligence on the issue, we just ignored it.
THere were threats, there were smaller events... Americans were just too ignorant and blissfully unaware to notice, or to care.
-
Well that is the connundruum isn't it? Those that feel the patriotic pull and pride in our great and (yes at times, seriously flawed) wonderful nation are equally puzzled at how people that live here, enjoy the benefits of living here, yet feel no sense of belonging or pride of being a part of this country...
Look at it this way, if you had a sister who had some flaws, but was still your sister, yet someone else was calling her a whore I would hope that you would still have strong enough feelings to defend her and stand up for her. Perhaps not the most ideally or eloquently stated analogy but one that I feel is similar.
For those of us old enough to have been alive and in the workforce in America (not in elementary school and not really capable of grasping the full ramifications of the attack) 9/11 is one of those days that gripped us and is one we will never forget. It is one of those defining moments in every generation where people stop and reflect and thank their god for family, freinds and freedom and grieve the losses of fellow Americans.
But what if she is a whore? You see, that goes both ways. Would you tell your sister to just go on being what she is because she's your sister and you lover her, or would you tell her to quit being a fucking whore?
In the end, though, it's just a simple matter of some people being wired differently than others. I for the life of me can't figure out why the hell the rest of the Earth doesn't see that I'm right in all things, but I accept that they have their own views. As for my wiring, I'm the ultimate pragmatist and I'm quite adept at compartmentalizing. As for my views on 911, I see a ton of different issues, reflecting good and bad on a lot of different parties, and I find it annoying that any view that isn't up and down patriotic is greeted with the "go back to Iran" mentality.
And I'm certainly old enough to appreciate the gravity of what happened, but that doesn't mean that it has to affect me the same way as anybody else. In my case, it provided me with a much improved view of existentialism. I'd say that it improved me in that regard.
-
You know what bothers me? It seems like the people who advocate patriotism, and how we're in this together, or often (not always) the same people who think Universal Health Care is a bad thing.
-
Well that is the connundruum isn't it? Those that feel the patriotic pull and pride in our great and (yes at times, seriously flawed) wonderful nation are equally puzzled at how people that live here, enjoy the benefits of living here, yet feel no sense of belonging or pride of being a part of this country...
Look at it this way, if you had a sister who had some flaws, but was still your sister, yet someone else was calling her a whore I would hope that you would still have strong enough feelings to defend her and stand up for her. Perhaps not the most ideally or eloquently stated analogy but one that I feel is similar.
For those of us old enough to have been alive and in the workforce in America (not in elementary school and not really capable of grasping the full ramifications of the attack) 9/11 is one of those days that gripped us and is one we will never forget. It is one of those defining moments in every generation where people stop and reflect and thank their god for family, freinds and freedom and grieve the losses of fellow Americans.
But what if she is a whore?
Then... :eyebrows:
-
Really though, why wouldn't America make a huge deal out of the most devastating attack on the country in its history? What do really think should happen every year? Seriously.
This isn't true either. I would argue that the British storming our country and burning the Capital to the ground was a bit more devastating to such a young country. The President had to flee the White House for crying out loud! :D
BC
I don't agree. We were fighting to be independent. It really wasn't totally our country at that point. That's why it was a fight for independence.
We were already the United States of America by that point.
I'm not really sure if you are trolling here, but your knowledge of History is a little frightening if you think that the so called War of 1812 was a war for Independence, or that there was a White House during the Revolutionary War.
BC
Really, dude? I get confused thinking your talking about the revolutionary war and you get all condescending and ask if I'm trolling?
Thanks.
-
Bedwetting Cosmonaut, the tone of your posts is incredibly condescending and belittling. You are free to argue whatever points you wish based on your knowledge of history. But to belittle what you perceive to be others' lack of knowledge of history is just a personal attack, plain and simple. That needs to stop.
Actually bosk, if you don't mind me saying, while I agree about your call on his tone, BC was correct that the British storming the capital and burning the White House down was during the War of 1812, which is a totally separate conflict from the Revolutionary War, and that it would be wrong to think either a President or White House existed during the actual Revolutionary War. I can see why he'd be surprised (and perhaps a little :facepalm:) by tick's response. I'm not saying his way of handling it was that great, but factually he was spot-on and there's no arguing against what he said without contradicting the facts.
Why is 911 called a terrorist attack and Pearl Harbor isn't?
BC
9/11 wasn't committed by a state, and was intentionally designed to kill civilians. The attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack by a state on military targets.
Though Pearl Harbour (not really the attack itself, but rather how American society before it is remembered) is another example of a whitewashing of American history.
Yeah Barto sorry to say it, but it has nothing to do with FDR not having a label like 'terror.' Terror is an attack carried about by non-state actors on non-military targets with the intention of achieving political effects, and Pearl Harbor is only one of those things.
Although GP I'm curious as to what you're referring to with that latter comment? The one about how American society before PH is remembered, I mean.
-
Bedwetting Cosmonaut, the tone of your posts is incredibly condescending and belittling. You are free to argue whatever points you wish based on your knowledge of history. But to belittle what you perceive to be others' lack of knowledge of history is just a personal attack, plain and simple. That needs to stop.
Actually bosk, if you don't mind me saying, while I agree about your call on his tone, BC was correct that the British storming the capital and burning the White House down was during the War of 1812, which is a totally separate conflict from the Revolutionary War, and that it would be wrong to think either a President or White House existed during the actual Revolutionary War. I can see why he'd be surprised (and perhaps a little :facepalm:) by tick's response. I'm not saying his way of handling it was that great, but factually he was spot-on and there's no arguing against what he said without contradicting the facts.
Actually, you don't have to be a prick because someone misunderstands you. I made a mistake.
and considering America now has a history of nearly 250 years under its belt, I would contend 9/11 is the biggest atrocity in its history.
Bosk was right, as usual.
-
Yeah Barto sorry to say it, but it has nothing to do with FDR not having a label like 'terror.' Terror is an attack carried about by non-state actors on non-military targets with the intention of achieving political effects, and Pearl Harbor is only one of those things.
I agree that Pearl didn't constitute terrorism. I was mostly editorializing about the reaction to 911.
I don't think I agree with your definition, though. There's nothing that says it can't be state sponsored, and I don't think military targets are off the table, either. Regardless, 911 qualified and Pearl didn't.
and considering America now has a history of nearly 250 years under its belt, I would contend 9/11 is the biggest atrocity in its history.
I think there are some black-skinned and red-skinned people who might disagree with you.
-
Yeah Barto sorry to say it, but it has nothing to do with FDR not having a label like 'terror.' Terror is an attack carried about by non-state actors on non-military targets with the intention of achieving political effects, and Pearl Harbor is only one of those things.
I agree that Pearl didn't constitute terrorism. I was mostly editorializing about the reaction to 911.
I don't think I agree with your definition, though. There's nothing that says it can't be state sponsored, and I don't think military targets are off the table, either. Regardless, 911 qualified and Pearl didn't.
Dude I think there are a few international relations theorists who would disagree with you. :P I just took a college course about the future of war, one of those points being the operational definition of a terror attack. To take your military target exception for example, just war lawyers and international theorists would usually call that an assassination and a legitimate target. That's why in California back in like 1999 or something when Al Qaeda blew up a military vessel, it was considered a legitimized non-terror attack.
tl;dr It's not my definition.
-
Yeah Barto sorry to say it, but it has nothing to do with FDR not having a label like 'terror.' Terror is an attack carried about by non-state actors on non-military targets with the intention of achieving political effects, and Pearl Harbor is only one of those things.
I agree that Pearl didn't constitute terrorism. I was mostly editorializing about the reaction to 911.
I don't think I agree with your definition, though. There's nothing that says it can't be state sponsored, and I don't think military targets are off the table, either. Regardless, 911 qualified and Pearl didn't.
and considering America now has a history of nearly 250 years under its belt, I would contend 9/11 is the biggest atrocity in its history.
I think there are some black-skinned and red-skinned people who might disagree with you.
Really, Barto, yer gonna play that card? Ok.
-
And why not? The near-genocide of an entire group of indigenous people is a terrible tragedy.
-
And why not? The near-genocide of an entire group of indigenous people is a terrible tragedy.
Not to mention 400 years of slavery, torture and legalized murder.
-
Wait, are we talking about the Indians or African slaves?
-
Wait, are we talking about the Indians or African slaves?
Well 400 years of slavery was africans, legalized torture and murder I guess applies to both.
-
Not to mention segregation and isolation of both, and I don't even know whether that's still true or not for either.
-
Yeah, it's pretty unbelievable how such a monumental atrocity can so often be selectively overlooked.
That said, trying to compare two tragedies by body count is totally nonsensical too.
-J
-
Who's comparing by body count?
-
and considering America now has a history of nearly 250 years under its belt, I would contend 9/11 is the biggest atrocity in its history.
I think there are some black-skinned and red-skinned people who might disagree with you.
[/quote]
Most definitely
-
@SD: I thought it was being sort of alluded to by some people on the first page of the thread, unless I'm remembering incorrectly. I read the thread the other day but didn't have a chance to post.
-J
-
This is about America the nation, not about the slaughtering of American Indians. If were going to go there, its not worth discussing. Don't make it seem as if the Indians were peace loving pacifists. Yes we came to claim this land, but don't think the Indians wouldn't have killed every white man in there path with no apologies if they were able to do so. I'm sure they tried. There were plenty of Indians who were savages, and put quite a few arrows into as many as they could. Its a savage world, and it has always been survival of the fittest.
Now if were discussing the worst atrocity on America the nation, it would be 9/11, imo.
-
Wow.
-
Wow.
Wee.
-
Just to make a more substantial reply, I will repeat your overall point in a different situation.
Sure I broke into my neighbors house, but don't think for a second that if I hadn't walked up to him and shot him in the eye that he wouldn't have tried to kill me first, and his wife was very savage toward me, now if you ask me the greatest tragedy I have ever faced was when the someone threw a firebomb through the house I stole from my neighbor after murdering him".
-
Adami, is your universal translator broken again?
-
Christ, Tick. I was really just screwing with you over your shaky use of the word atrocity. A spirited defense of the genocide of indigenous peoples was about the last thing I was expecting.
-
Just to make a more substantial reply, I will repeat your overall point in a different situation.
Sure I broke into my neighbors house, but don't think for a second that if I hadn't walked up to him and shot him in the eye that he wouldn't have tried to kill me first, and his wife was very savage toward me, now if you ask me the greatest tragedy I have ever faced was when the someone threw a firebomb through the house I stole from my neighbor after murdering him".
Nah, I aint buying that analogy. Do you think from the moment America was discovered there weren't arrows flying into the backs of anyone spotted by an Indian? Do you think they weren't out to kill us whether we came in peace or not? Do you?
-
Christ, Tick. I was really just screwing with you over your shaky use of the word atrocity. A spirited defense of the genocide of indigenous peoples was about the last thing I was expecting.
Surprise!
-
Well for one thing, I think quite a few of the Injuns were quite friendly and welcoming. Part of the basis for the first American Thanksgiving was that the local Indians kept the Plymouth colonists from starving to death.
The bigger issue though is the situation you're presenting. If somebody breaks into your home, you're going to feel inclined to shoot him dead. Yet you're now suggesting that he'd be justified in killing you first, preemptively.
-
Just to make a more substantial reply, I will repeat your overall point in a different situation.
Sure I broke into my neighbors house, but don't think for a second that if I hadn't walked up to him and shot him in the eye that he wouldn't have tried to kill me first, and his wife was very savage toward me, now if you ask me the greatest tragedy I have ever faced was when the someone threw a firebomb through the house I stole from my neighbor after murdering him".
Nah, I aint buying that analogy. Do you think from the moment America was discovered there weren't arrows flying into the backs of anyone spotted by an Indian? Do you think they weren't out to kill us whether we came in peace or not? Do you?
It doesn't matter. If you go to a neighbors house and he screams "GET OUT OR I'LL KILL YOU!" do you leave? Or do you shoot him and live in his house?
And yes, I know this is quite ironic coming from an Israeli.
-
This is about America the nation, not about the slaughtering of American Indians. If were going to go there, its not worth discussing. Don't make it seem as if the Indians were peace loving pacifists. Yes we came to claim this land, but don't think the Indians wouldn't have killed every white man in there path with no apologies if they were able to do so. I'm sure they tried. There were plenty of Indians who were savages, and put quite a few arrows into as many as they could. Its a savage world, and it has always been survival of the fittest.
Now if were discussing the worst atrocity on America the nation, it would be 9/11, imo.
I normally wouldn't post here, but I've been following this thread because it's been an interesting read. I'd just like to say that this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on the internet. You just defended the slaughtering of thousands of Native Americans. What the actual fuck.
-
Well for one thing, I think quite a few of the Injuns were quite friendly and welcoming. Part of the basis for the first American Thanksgiving was that the local Indians kept the Plymouth colonists from starving to death.
The bigger issue though is the situation you're presenting. If somebody breaks into your home, you're going to feel inclined to shoot him dead. Yet you're now suggesting that he'd be justified in killing you first, preemptively.
It's too bad I don't have my book Before the Revolution with me, which could actually provide some empirical evidence that proves you right. In fact, there were chiefs that tried to open kin-group relations with some Europeans via gift-giving, which operated in the same way giving your daughter as a local chieftain to marry worked in medieval Europe. It was a way of establishing level-to-level political ties.
-
This is about America the nation, not about the slaughtering of American Indians. If were going to go there, its not worth discussing. Don't make it seem as if the Indians were peace loving pacifists. Yes we came to claim this land, but don't think the Indians wouldn't have killed every white man in there path with no apologies if they were able to do so. I'm sure they tried. There were plenty of Indians who were savages, and put quite a few arrows into as many as they could. Its a savage world, and it has always been survival of the fittest.
Now if were discussing the worst atrocity on America the nation, it would be 9/11, imo.
Yeah, tell that to the handful of remaining Indians who's heritage, culture and people have been wiped out by capitalist greed. To this day we are still screwing the Natives. And there is literally not a single way to pay them back for it all, not even if we could afford, monetarily speaking, to pay reparations because of how much money we have taken right from underneath their noses.
Yeah, nice one man. Classy.
-
I got an idea Tick, if you rephrase your statement as "9/11 was the worst atrocity on legal citizens of the united states of america" then this entire argument could be avoided.
-
This is about America the nation, not about the slaughtering of American Indians. If were going to go there, its not worth discussing. Don't make it seem as if the Indians were peace loving pacifists. Yes we came to claim this land, but don't think the Indians wouldn't have killed every white man in there path with no apologies if they were able to do so. I'm sure they tried. There were plenty of Indians who were savages, and put quite a few arrows into as many as they could. Its a savage world, and it has always been survival of the fittest.
Now if were discussing the worst atrocity on America the nation, it would be 9/11, imo.
That's crazy talk. You want me to believe that the Native Americans would actually try to fight off European invaders? Why would anyone ever fight back if their people are being killed and their land is being taken from them?
Oh yeah.... to try and defend themselves, their family, and the land they lived on.
-
I got an idea Tick, if you rephrase your statement as "9/11 was the worst atrocity on legal citizens of the united states of america" then this entire argument could be avoided.
Hell, if he just would have said "on" America, then I would have left it alone. I was just razzing him over his vaguely written premise. :lol
-
That's not what this thread is about. Thanks, S.D. and others for taking it so far off track that there's not point in letting it continue.
-
Would a mod/admin consider unlocking it under the agreement that we abandon the whole Native American issue?
I think there is still very interesting discussion to be had on the subject, and it would be a shame if it went to waste just because the thread veered slightly off topic for a few posts.
Yes. And also under the condition that people stop baiting Tick. Just because his beliefs may be unpopular with certain members, or because he tends to be "bull in a china shop" in the way he articulates them sometimes, doesn't give people the right to bait him.
Everyone understand? Good. Let's try again.
...and although it goes without saying, I'll just add: Tick, the fact that I'm slapping others on the wrist for the way they treated you, doesn't give you a free pass to act out either, okay? Everybody, just let's let past infractions in the thread go.
-
Before I continue on track may I just say(as the bull in a China shop that I am)I was just playing devils advocate with the native American thing to take an opposing view. My apologies to those I offended.
Back on track. Some here have said, America makes a bigger deal out of 9/11 than it should be, when we don't make a big deal of of tragedy's like the Earthquake in Haiti. As many have said, its not the same thing to compare a terrorist attack to a natural disaster, but if you think that's the case, realize we don't hold our own natural disasters such as Katrina even close to the level of 9/11. Those kinds of events are ones where the response and outpouring comes initially when the victims are hurting and in need. We don't tend to memorialize those events years into the future.
America does suffer from a feeling of exceptionalism. I have a always felt that way. The whole pride comes before a fall thing is so taking place in this country. That being said, I don't think too much is made out of 9/11 every year. Any event that changes a nation forever and the way it conducts itself in every way is a very big deal. The greed of the richest 1% in this country is ultimately what is destroying us, and that at this point is irreversible.
-
Another thing I think people need to remember.... While there have been many other events that some may rank higher than 9/11, this is one of the first times such an event was captured from so many angles. Not only did mayhem take place, but Americans watched it unfold live, and in good quality too. If a bomb goes off in a train station, odds are the only footage you will see is from a security camera, and then news report footage of the aftermath. I think that's the key, seeing the destruction after the fact. Watching the events of 9/11 unfold before our very eyes, the uncertainty of whether or not you were safe, and fearing how many more may be killed in the coming hours, leaves a much stronger memory in someone's mind. Lets just say the towers were around in the 50's and the same event took place, I don't think it would have impacted Americans the way it did ten years ago. Knowing a serious event happened, and watching a serious event happen will greatly affect how people will remember the day.
-
I think my biggest issue with this whole thing is how shocked many people were, and how "shocked" the people who run this country seemed to be. The CIA has a word for this, "blowback". I said it before, and I will say it again. 9/11 was not a random attack; it was just simply another event in an ongoing series on conflicts that has been going on since the 1970s. To pretend that America was sitting by idly and minding its own business when BAM, we were hit out of no where is simply laughable.
BC
-
But that doesn't mean it shouldn't bother anyone....
-
I think my biggest issue with this whole thing is how shocked many people were, and how "shocked" the people who run this country seemed to be. The CIA has a word for this, "blowback". I said it before, and I will say it again. 9/11 was not a random attack; it was just simply another event in an ongoing series on conflicts that has been going on since the 1970s. To pretend that America was sitting by idly and minding its own business when BAM, we were hit out of no where is simply laughable.
BC
This. It bothers me somewhat when people call it unexpected, unprovoked, or even say that we unintentionally provoked terrorists to react, especially considering it was more than a simple situation of military bases in their countries. We did all the things necessary to provoke a violent response (see Somalia in the early 90s and Iraq throughout that entire decade), and only naivete can explain our surprise.
-
But that doesn't mean it shouldn't bother anyone....
I didn't say that. You can be bothered all you want. I will however say that the more bothering thing is the disgusting limits that this country has taken the event to in order to pass policy, write laws and start wars.
BC
-
I think my biggest issue with this whole thing is how shocked many people were, and how "shocked" the people who run this country seemed to be. The CIA has a word for this, "blowback". I said it before, and I will say it again. 9/11 was not a random attack; it was just simply another event in an ongoing series on conflicts that has been going on since the 1970s. To pretend that America was sitting by idly and minding its own business when BAM, we were hit out of no where is simply laughable.
BC
This. It bothers me somewhat when people call it unexpected, unprovoked, or even say that we unintentionally provoked terrorists to react, especially considering it was more than a simple situation of military bases in their countries. We did all the things necessary to provoke a violent response (see Somalia in the early 90s and Iraq throughout that entire decade), and only naivete can explain our surprise.
Well that's because the majority of Americans are uneducated about our place in the world.
But that doesn't mean it shouldn't bother anyone....
I will however say that the more bothering thing is the disgusting limits that this country has taken the event to in order to pass policy, write laws and start wars.
BC
That I agree with.
-
Right, although I think that's a problem that can't be simply waved away. Considering the large role we did have in the world (and still do, in spite of recent troubles), we really can't afford to be ignorant of the extent of our reach and the consequences thereof (it seems a little too obvious to point out that that is, after all, how we ended up in this mess in the first place).
-
I think my biggest issue with this whole thing is how shocked many people were, and how "shocked" the people who run this country seemed to be. The CIA has a word for this, "blowback". I said it before, and I will say it again. 9/11 was not a random attack; it was just simply another event in an ongoing series on conflicts that has been going on since the 1970s. To pretend that America was sitting by idly and minding its own business when BAM, we were hit out of no where is simply laughable.
BC
This. It bothers me somewhat when people call it unexpected, unprovoked, or even say that we unintentionally provoked terrorists to react, especially considering it was more than a simple situation of military bases in their countries. We did all the things necessary to provoke a violent response (see Somalia in the early 90s and Iraq throughout that entire decade), and only naivete can explain our surprise.
Well that's because the majority of Americans are uneducated about our place in the world.
Most Americans are too busy trying to keep there head above water in rough times to be thinking about terrorist attacks.
Of coarse its unexpected to the average hard working person. Who would have thought...
"Hey honey, come look at the TV. Its that all out terrorist attack we've been waiting for. Wow, its just what I expected and more."
-
I think my biggest issue with this whole thing is how shocked many people were, and how "shocked" the people who run this country seemed to be. The CIA has a word for this, "blowback". I said it before, and I will say it again. 9/11 was not a random attack; it was just simply another event in an ongoing series on conflicts that has been going on since the 1970s. To pretend that America was sitting by idly and minding its own business when BAM, we were hit out of no where is simply laughable.
BC
This. It bothers me somewhat when people call it unexpected, unprovoked, or even say that we unintentionally provoked terrorists to react, especially considering it was more than a simple situation of military bases in their countries. We did all the things necessary to provoke a violent response (see Somalia in the early 90s and Iraq throughout that entire decade), and only naivete can explain our surprise.
Well that's because the majority of Americans are uneducated about our place in the world.
Most Americans are too busy trying to keep there head above water in rough times to be thinking about terrorist attacks.
Of coarse its unexpected to the average hard working person. Who would have thought...
"Hey honey, come look at the TV. Its that all out terrorist attack we've been waiting for. Wow, its just what I expected and more."
The summer/early fall of 2001 was not hard times.
BC
-
I think my biggest issue with this whole thing is how shocked many people were, and how "shocked" the people who run this country seemed to be. The CIA has a word for this, "blowback". I said it before, and I will say it again. 9/11 was not a random attack; it was just simply another event in an ongoing series on conflicts that has been going on since the 1970s. To pretend that America was sitting by idly and minding its own business when BAM, we were hit out of no where is simply laughable.
BC
This. It bothers me somewhat when people call it unexpected, unprovoked, or even say that we unintentionally provoked terrorists to react, especially considering it was more than a simple situation of military bases in their countries. We did all the things necessary to provoke a violent response (see Somalia in the early 90s and Iraq throughout that entire decade), and only naivete can explain our surprise.
Well that's because the majority of Americans are uneducated about our place in the world.
Most Americans are too busy trying to keep there head above water in rough times to be thinking about terrorist attacks.
Of coarse its unexpected to the average hard working person. Who would have thought...
"Hey honey, come look at the TV. Its that all out terrorist attack we've been waiting for. Wow, its just what I expected and more."
The summer/early fall of 2001 was not hard times.
BC
Says who? Because we weren't deeply rooted in recession you think the country was riding the gravy train? No, I don't think so. People were still struggling 10 years ago to make ends meet. They certainly were not obsessing about a major attack on there country.
-
I think my biggest issue with this whole thing is how shocked many people were, and how "shocked" the people who run this country seemed to be. The CIA has a word for this, "blowback". I said it before, and I will say it again. 9/11 was not a random attack; it was just simply another event in an ongoing series on conflicts that has been going on since the 1970s. To pretend that America was sitting by idly and minding its own business when BAM, we were hit out of no where is simply laughable.
BC
This. It bothers me somewhat when people call it unexpected, unprovoked, or even say that we unintentionally provoked terrorists to react, especially considering it was more than a simple situation of military bases in their countries. We did all the things necessary to provoke a violent response (see Somalia in the early 90s and Iraq throughout that entire decade), and only naivete can explain our surprise.
Well that's because the majority of Americans are uneducated about our place in the world.
Most Americans are too busy trying to keep there head above water in rough times to be thinking about terrorist attacks.
Of coarse its unexpected to the average hard working person. Who would have thought...
"Hey honey, come look at the TV. Its that all out terrorist attack we've been waiting for. Wow, its just what I expected and more."
The summer/early fall of 2001 was not hard times.
BC
Says who? Because we weren't deeply rooted in recession you think the country was riding the gravy train? No, I don't think so. People were still struggling 10 years ago to make ends meet. They certainly were not obsessing about a major attack on there country.
It's almost irrelevent to even make a point like that though. Everyone in America was shocked that it happened on the day it happened. No one in their right mind sits around waiting for a terrorist attack to happen. You are taking what I said and rewording it to say something entirely different. Of course we were shocked that it happened on 9/11/01. But, in the aftermath of the attack, after figuring out who was responsible, it should have shed light on most people. "Hey, maybe they attacked us because we've been messing around with them for the last 30 years." A thought like that should enter most people's minds. Again, obviously on the DAY it happened EVERYONE was shocked.
BC
-
A comparison to Pearl Harbour in that respect is apt. That the attack happened when it did (during negotiations) and where it did (much nearer to the US mainland than thought possible) was the surprising aspects. The American military anticipated a strike in the near future via military intelligence, and any person with a basic knowledge of foreign relations knew that cutting off Japan's oil supply would draw the two countries into conflict.
-
Wait, are we talking about the Indians or African slaves?
Well 400 years of slavery was africans, legalized torture and murder I guess applies to both.
Who kept african slaves for 400 years? Not baiting, just genuinely curious where you are draving the number from. Not disagreeing with you either. But bear in mind, African's do not have the monopoly on having been slaves, just remember that.
-
Yeah, that number seems out of wack. Slavery only lasted for about two hundred years (I think the first widespread slavery for means of tobacco production started in Virginia fifty or so years after the establishment of Jamestown). If you want to be really loose with the definition (extend it to when all minorities were afforded the un-infringed right to vote) you can get another 100 years.
-
Yeah, that number seems out of wack. Slavery only lasted for about two hundred years (I think the first widespread slavery for means of tobacco production started in Virginia fifty or so years after the establishment of Jamestown). If you want to be really loose with the definition (extend it to when all minorities were afforded the un-infringed right to vote) you can get another 100 years.
I wouldnt be that loose... slavery implies ownership of a human being by another. Not some existential definition based upon a class, race being "kept down by the man". Did blacks have it bad, of course they did. Just like immigrating Irish did, Immigrating Italians did and of course just like the Native Americans that we European based immigrants pretty much cheated and fucked out of their country. :-\
-
Obviously American slavery can only have started when America did, but we merely continued the practice of the Brits who'd been kidnapping Africans since the 1500s. From that standpoint, while America couldn't have been directly involved before we were standing on our own two feet, we certainly owe our existence to that point in large part to African slaves.
-
Obviously American slavery can only have started when America did, but we merely continued the practice of the Brits who'd been kidnapping Africans since the 1500s. From that standpoint, while America couldn't have been directly involved before we were standing on our own two feet, we certainly owe our existence to that point in large part to African slaves.
This, and the Dutch as well.
-
(I think the first widespread slavery for means of tobacco production started in Virginia fifty or so years after the establishment of Jamestown).
Not being a dick here, but I just learned this today. It was 1619. 12 years after the initial founding.
-
Obviously American slavery can only have started when America did, but we merely continued the practice of the Brits who'd been kidnapping Africans since the 1500s. From that standpoint, while America couldn't have been directly involved before we were standing on our own two feet, we certainly owe our existence to that point in large part to African slaves.
This, and the Dutch as well.
And the arabs too, who had been taking slaves from Africa for centuries and centuries before the Europeans started doing it.