I'm sure that if I tried really hardI could remember a single instance of that in the last 100 years or so... but truth is that I don't remember thousands of your people dying in a terrorist attack aimed at disrupting your (and worldwide) economy. Nothing comparable anyway.
That, or I might just not care about your country any more than you care for mine...
(,
Fri 10 Oct 2003, 17:27,
archived)
That, or I might just not care about your country any more than you care for mine...
Not in one go...but I believe just as many civilians were killed in the Northern Island 'troubles' as died on Sept 11th, it was just spread out over a lot longer. Bill Clinton was the first President to listen to the Brits asking for Americans to stop funding the IRA. No one in the British army used to eat in McDonalds because they were linked to funding terrorist organisations in Ireland.
But, as soon as America is attacked, in a horrific way, by a sociopath that they'd screwed over in the past (not that this excuses it, and that's bin Laden, not SH) then suddenly terrorism is the worst thing ever. So sorry if all the Brits don't seem too sympathetic, but we've been living with this sort of shit a lot longer than you, and we didn't decide to raze NI to the ground because of a few of them, though plenty of our troops and innocent people died - some of which was our fault, which is one of the reasons we shouldn't have gone in to Iraq with the USA, because we all ready knew how bad it could get when you're occupying somewhere.
(Hmmph. Something obviously pushed over my rant switch)
(,
Fri 10 Oct 2003, 22:14,
archived)
But, as soon as America is attacked, in a horrific way, by a sociopath that they'd screwed over in the past (not that this excuses it, and that's bin Laden, not SH) then suddenly terrorism is the worst thing ever. So sorry if all the Brits don't seem too sympathetic, but we've been living with this sort of shit a lot longer than you, and we didn't decide to raze NI to the ground because of a few of them, though plenty of our troops and innocent people died - some of which was our fault, which is one of the reasons we shouldn't have gone in to Iraq with the USA, because we all ready knew how bad it could get when you're occupying somewhere.
(Hmmph. Something obviously pushed over my rant switch)
I can see your pointbut the psychological impact of having that many people die in one of the largest cities in the country, all in one attack, combined with the economic impact of the WTC crumbling is a lot easier to get excited about (for those of us who live in the States) than if Osama had killed a few handfuls at a time over a period of years. Also, we didn't raze Iraq to the ground; despite the ease with which we could have both from a viewpoint of military might and psychologically, considering Iraq is geographically far enough from the US that it wouldn't have an immediate and direct impact on us.
(,
Fri 10 Oct 2003, 22:58,
archived)
I'd hardly call getting 'excited about' something a sound piece of reasoning upon which to go to war with two countries.
I think it's a bit too easy to throw generalisations around on this kind of subject. Britain has been living with terrorism for a long time now, I think a lot of Americans have failed to understand what we mean when we say -lots of the funding for the IRA came from the USA- and but still you had radio stations that would openly broadcast appeals to the American population asking for donations for them. Donations so that they could kill us. Donations so that they could kill me and my family (yep, we were considered legitimate targets because my father was in the civil service at the time. Oh those fun days of checking for car bombs before I got a lift to school in the morning).
There is quite a lot of bitterness about the hipocrisy of the US towards terrorism in other countries and against them. While I don't say it's right that we are bitter it's an easy sentiment to understand.
The destruction of Iraq could not have been more thorough. Sure, you could have killed everyone, but at least that would have been organised. Instead there is a power vacuum that will not be filled easily by democracy. Most Middle-Eastern countries have never existed in a democratic state and are perfectly fine about it, it's just a case of finding a benign dictator. The US is trying to impose a foreign system of government on the people and as such is destroying them in a way that bombs never could.
I think the point that people were trying to make earlier is really that the Sept 11th attacks were really to do with the way that the US automatically believes it has the right to impose their moral codes (and related cultural artifacts such as McDonalds and Gap) on the rest of the world... And that the US has the arrogance to assert that we should all be happy about this. The trouble is that I don't think America even noticed this aspect of why the attacks happened, the US was too busy being shocked... I mean, seriously, is 'The US is open for business' really the best way to represent a strong face into attacks? Is commercialism the answer or the problem?
I'm a bit passionate about this subject... Not that I think that anyone will change their minds because of anything I say.
(I think it's a bit too easy to throw generalisations around on this kind of subject. Britain has been living with terrorism for a long time now, I think a lot of Americans have failed to understand what we mean when we say -lots of the funding for the IRA came from the USA- and but still you had radio stations that would openly broadcast appeals to the American population asking for donations for them. Donations so that they could kill us. Donations so that they could kill me and my family (yep, we were considered legitimate targets because my father was in the civil service at the time. Oh those fun days of checking for car bombs before I got a lift to school in the morning).
There is quite a lot of bitterness about the hipocrisy of the US towards terrorism in other countries and against them. While I don't say it's right that we are bitter it's an easy sentiment to understand.
The destruction of Iraq could not have been more thorough. Sure, you could have killed everyone, but at least that would have been organised. Instead there is a power vacuum that will not be filled easily by democracy. Most Middle-Eastern countries have never existed in a democratic state and are perfectly fine about it, it's just a case of finding a benign dictator. The US is trying to impose a foreign system of government on the people and as such is destroying them in a way that bombs never could.
I think the point that people were trying to make earlier is really that the Sept 11th attacks were really to do with the way that the US automatically believes it has the right to impose their moral codes (and related cultural artifacts such as McDonalds and Gap) on the rest of the world... And that the US has the arrogance to assert that we should all be happy about this. The trouble is that I don't think America even noticed this aspect of why the attacks happened, the US was too busy being shocked... I mean, seriously, is 'The US is open for business' really the best way to represent a strong face into attacks? Is commercialism the answer or the problem?
I'm a bit passionate about this subject... Not that I think that anyone will change their minds because of anything I say.
Matazone has new icons, but is keeping this one,
Sat 11 Oct 2003, 0:22,
archived)
I get it.My point is, as I've made in other posts, that the duty of government is to provide for the best interests of the country it represents. Whereas the average citizen may want the world to be a happy place filled with sunshine, butterflies, rainbows and kittens; the government has only the responsibility to provide that (or as close as possible) within the borders of its own country.
If terrorism is a real and ongoing threat in your own country, blame the government that is responsible for taking actions to prevent it; which is not the US government, unless you happen to live on US soil.
The US's only interest in Iraq is it's oil. As far as the US government is concerned, it's the only thing in the area worth considering. This may sound harsh and mean, but it's business and business always boils down to the bottom line.
Of course the US government doesn't give a rat's ass about terrorist threats affecting other countries... they only care about their own country, as any realistic government has the obligation to.
Taking it out on Americans as a whole is a sign of total ignorance.
(,
Sat 11 Oct 2003, 0:52,
archived)
If terrorism is a real and ongoing threat in your own country, blame the government that is responsible for taking actions to prevent it; which is not the US government, unless you happen to live on US soil.
The US's only interest in Iraq is it's oil. As far as the US government is concerned, it's the only thing in the area worth considering. This may sound harsh and mean, but it's business and business always boils down to the bottom line.
Of course the US government doesn't give a rat's ass about terrorist threats affecting other countries... they only care about their own country, as any realistic government has the obligation to.
Taking it out on Americans as a whole is a sign of total ignorance.