[QUOTE=DudleyGarrett]
Um, 95% of Hiroshima’s victims were civilians. But hey, it wasn’t a terrorist attack because they were at “war,” right? Fuck you.
Here’s a clue for you, fucko, whatever terrorist group flew the planes into the WTC towers has been at war with the US for a very long time.
I’m not going to get into a meaningless tit-for-tat about what terrorist attacks are more devastating, but rest assured, 3,000 innocents dying in an attack isn’t something that only the US has endured.
[/QUOTE]
Ooooh. “fucko” I haven’t been called that in a while.
It ended a war in which a lot more people that are the combined population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have died.
How about this: 100% of the people that dies on 9/11 were non-combatants.
[QUOTE=yojimbo]
Now if I understand this correctly. Nava seems to work for a US company. There was staff attending a 1 day meeting in London who were usually based in Spain. These people were told by their US bosses to stay put in London and not try travel by any means. It is this confusion and over reaction that Nava is talking about when she talks about headless chickens from what I can see.
Hopefully she’ll come in and clarify this but she doesn’t seem to be talking about people in NY in or around the buildings but the reactions of US staff and the effect it had on their people in London.
[/QUOTE]
Sue, but we didn’t know at the time that this was an overreaction. We didn’t know if there were more to come or where they would be. Why is having extra security measures the same as running around like headless chickens?
That the most hateful, nasty, sickening thing I’ve ever read here happened to be about terrorism in Spain is, however, a coincidence. It doesn’t make the comment any better, and I reckon this pitting is justifiable.
“Fun” was an ill-chosen word, and is indefensible IMO. We had a metric shitload of sympathy, but I will admit that this was followed by a horrified fascination about the US reaction, which was so very different to other countries when under terrorist attack: at first so very, very extreme, then so very, very schmaltzy, then so very, very violent.
But not “fun”.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t have to read ten posts before I saw Americans yelling at that OP. But you’re right, that was a shitty thing to say. I think he should apologize too.
I agree with everything else you say, too.
Unrelatedly, I’d like to quote this post from eleanor:
I agree, and sorry for not measuring up to the rest of the world’s expectations. Do I need to include a rolleyes?
[QUOTE=Nava]
Watching the towers fall was ouchie, watching the americans run around like headless chickens… was actually kind of fun.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think I’m the only person who read this as referring to frightened people in the streets of New York, not bureaucrats in the days that followed, as headless chickens.
[QUOTE=Crotalus]
I don’t think I’m the only person who read this as referring to frightened people in the streets of New York, not bureaucrats in the days that followed, as headless chickens.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly, and I’m not sure why it took until post #52 for her to clarify that.
This is ridiculous. The whole world was uneasy in the first few days. I remember Europeans crying on TV. (did they hire them for the day-I doubt it). I do know that my sister’s Swiss owned business essentially shut down for the week. It was not the only international business to do so. Weren’t the major markets down for at least two days? The world had a hiccup–because of the postion
American holds. NOT because we’re just the greatest, but we happened to be the biggest, strongest power out there. How hard is this to understand?
No offense to the helpless old woman, but given the circumstances, I’m sure they found other ways of copinng with her disabilities.
And now I’m late for work. This has really pissed me off. I’ve lost respect for you, Nava–and thanks for attempting to undermine the good relationship with EU and UK we have here. To me, it seems you’ve tried to smear shit over it all today. Nicely done. I don’t look for 100% agreement from allies and friends, but I don’t expect malice and gloating, either. I think we can safely extrapolate that to nations, don’t you?
[QUOTE=yojimbo]
The majority of IRA funding came from bank raids, kidnapping and other illegal activities in Ireland and the UK. On of the biggest shipments of guns was given by Libya. The US funds mostly funded prisoners families etc. while in jail. The Brits like to beat you Yanks over the head with this but not only was it a tiny fraction of your population that gave money it also wasn’t the main source of income.
[/QUOTE]
Completely true, but nevertheless the perception after 9/11 was that America was in some way hypocritical.
[hijack]
Arguably the US response to 9/11 pushed peace in Northern Ireland closer.
The Bush Govt were at pains to make clear they were not fighting a War on Islam, but a War on Terror… this would have been untenable had they not acted against IRA terrorists if bombings had continued on the British mainland.
I’ve often wondered whether Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness suddenly had visions of a trip to Guantanamo prior to they renunciation of violence…
[QUOTE=Nutty Bunny]
Sue, but we didn’t know at the time that this was an overreaction. We didn’t know if there were more to come or where they would be. Why is having extra security measures the same as running around like headless chickens?
[/QUOTE]
Stopping all plane travel in the States was a wise and brave move. I’d say that most if not all of the security measures carried out in the States in the days that followed were justified. Security was ramped up over here as well but the level of threat wasn’t the same and most Europeans didn’t fell much more at risk that normal, apart from the worry of WWIII kicking off that is.
Making people stay in London becuase of attacks in NY is silly. For one London was/is the biggest target in Europe. Notice that it wasn’t just flying they were told not to do. Ferries etc. were banned as well. If you can’t see this as a over reaction then we’ll have to differ.
for years “Joe Schmoe and Jane Doe” were exactly those people putting their hands in their pockets for NORAID, while British civilians were killed by the bombs bought with that money;
the same “Joe Schmoe and Jane Doe” thought of similar civilians on the end of US military action as “collateral damage”, and cheered the troops as the came home (“USA” USA!")… suddenly they know what it’s like to be collateral damage;
Joe and Jane were happy to remain in blissful ignorance of the price their seccurity and prosperity cost Abdullah Schmoe and Shahista Doe in the middle east, but were outraged when the same violence was visited on them.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE SENTIMENTS!
But that’s the reality, like it or not, for many people around the world when they saw the Towers fall.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, like I said: barbarians. Killing a thousand random people in the hopes of getting one or two who were sympathetic to one’s enemy is downright Stalinesque in its conception.
I can’t believe someone is actually pissed off because offers of medical aid and blood donations were turned down, due to the fact that they weren’t needed because so many people were dead instead of injured.
Jesus H. Christ.
And yeah, count me in as another who read Nava’s “headless chickens” comment as a reference to terrified people fleeing the WTC when the towers were coming down.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Is it worse to have 3000 people (and that’s a much higher number than any I’ve read) …
[/QUOTE]
The “official” death toll was somewhere between 2973 and 2976 (based on the numbers I’m finding with a quick google; nobody seems to quite agree). I’m not sure what you’ve been reading, but 3000 isn’t “much higher” than that.
[QUOTE=Nava]
Because it never occured to me that you could be reading what I said that way!
Sorry I made you late for work, eleanorigby
[/QUOTE]
Well, the towers falling and the headless chickens were in the same sentence, and the same networks which showed us the towers falling showed us injured people covered in soot running through the streets on that day. I don’t recall seeing any government officials actually running in panic. It may have happened, but I didn’t see it.
[QUOTE=Crotalus]
This is simply stupid. Do you actually think that New York, DC and Virginia had a shortage of firefighters and medical personnel at that time? There was no shortage, and there were tens of thousands of qualified volunteers a hell of a lot closer than Spain. Disasters often provoke offers of help which are refused for practical, logistical reasons. It’s not an insult.
[/QUOTE]
I am from the NYC area and there were thousands of our own that wanted to help but there was nothing for them to do. A friend of mine put it very well “I felt helpless and wanted to do something…even if they had only handed me a broom to sweep ten blocks away it would have felt better than being sent home.” It was nothing personal against other governments.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
“Fun” was an ill-chosen word, and is indefensible IMO. We had a metric shitload of sympathy, but I will admit that this was followed by a horrified fascination about the US reaction, which was so very different to other countries when under terrorist attack: at first so very, very extreme, then so very, very schmaltzy, then so very, very violent.
But not “fun”.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not arguing that our response hasn’t been melodramatic & laughably ineffective in some parts. But overall, has the US reaction been so very different to other terrorized countries at a comparable point in their histories? (Excluding the schmaltzy part & the waging war on Iraq) Perhaps someone could educate me on this?
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Yeah, like I said: barbarians. Killing a thousand random people in the hopes of getting one or two who were sympathetic to one’s enemy is downright Stalinesque in its conception.
[/QUOTE]
You’re describing the terrorists, not the people who rolled their eyes and said “now you know how it feels”.
[QUOTE=Mr Bus Guy]
Seems to me that one of those happened in Oklahoma City, by a member of an internal group.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed: that shows how hard it is to defend against such actions. However, while there are a few isolated crazies in the US, the US does not face a long-standing campaign by a large section of the population in an region to separate.
[QUOTE=Mr Bus Guy]
How about this: 100% of the people that dies on 9/11 were non-combatants.
[/QUOTE]
Except for the military personnel in the Pentagon, of course.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Yeah, like I said: barbarians. Killing a thousand random people in the hopes of getting one or two who were sympathetic to one’s enemy is downright Stalinesque in its conception.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, so you can understand why civilians in other nations wondered how America could be so two-faced, condemning callous slaughter when elements of their own military operated under the principle that “'it became necessary to destroy the town to save it”.
There’s no logic to this, just raw emotion and decades of simmering anger for the civilians killed by American troops.