Sept 11th

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 4:26 pm

To put it frankly...until I see news the US has a battle group on the way to force the rest of the world to mourn the day, there is nothing to discuss.

Or maybe I missed a interview on TV where Bush said the World better mourn or they will regret it.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 4:43 pm

As pointed before, I also don't see numbers as primal fact.
I don't understand the purpose of a world mobilization.
But in USA obviously, I expect a mobilization.
I never said it before but there is a great diference between the attack to the Pentagon and the atack to the WTC.
This diference make me act against the terrorism. And also understand and agree with the mobilization. The diference between a government building(Attack against one country) and a civilian building(Attack against innocent civilians).

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 6:02 pm

Originally posted by Weasel
To put it frankly...until I see news the US has a battle group on the way to force the rest of the world to mourn the day, there is nothing to discuss.

Or maybe I missed a interview on TV where Bush said the World better mourn or they will regret it.

Agreement as per usual with the Secret Master of the World.

Odd Note Dept: I just heard on Radio Nederlands mention of some leaked info about massive conflicts growing in Dubyah's administration over whether to declare war on Iraq or not. Seems that the hawks are led by Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, while Colin Powell is leader of the, well, "doves." And the hawks have dubbed Powell the "Flower Power Child."

It says something about an administration when it pokes fun at the concerns of the only resident military mind (and architect of a successful war) in its midst.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 6:16 pm

Originally posted by fable

Agreement as per usual with the Secret Master of the World.

Odd Note Dept: I just heard on Radio Nederlands mention of some leaked info about massive conflicts growing in Dubyah's administration over whether to declare war on Iraq or not. Seems that the hawks are led by Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, while Colin Powell is leader of the, well, "doves." And the hawks have dubbed Powell the "Flower Power Child."

It says something about an administration when it pokes fun at the concerns of the only resident military mind (and architect of a successful war) in its midst.

"A house divide will soon fall."

I believe this sums up the Republican party at the moment. And in my personal opinion, come 2004 it will show. Powell will be exiting the scene...if not before and he will not run, thinking he will help divide the party. Sadly I believe this is the one failing of the man. A great man with a great service record to the US, overshadowed by the "Good Old" boys.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 7:23 pm

I find it hypocritical that we hold a memorial for the Americans, but people who suffered more, died more violent deaths etc., are not mentioned at all at any point

Hopefully I can do my thoughts justice, and answer this question intelligently.

I know many more people around the world have died in horrible ways. I don't want to disregard any of these. I have great compassion for them. But , for me, 9-11 was more than the deaths of the immediate victims.

I apologize if I offend anyone with what I am about to say , but by its graphic nature, it is the only way I can think of to convey my emotions on this issue.

When those planes tore through the WTC, it was as if, metaphorically, We, as a nation had been raped. Like a rape, the absolute physical damage may have been relatively small, compared to the tremendous psychological trauma. The lives lost were tragic in their own right. Violent loss of life always is. But beyond death, I, and many others, have been changed. Perhaps our loss of innocence is overdue in the rest of the world's eyes. Perhaps. But it is a painful loss to many of us none the less. And if the victim is a matronly virgin, does that somehow make the tragedy less severe? I hope not.

Life goes on. Usually I don't think about 9-11. When I do, I choke up a bit, and have to catch my breath. Do I expect anyone else to mourn the loss? No. But if you had a friend who had been raped, I hope you would offer them your compassion and understanding.

Osiris · Post by **Osiris** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:04 am

Different events have a different significance for each of us. A tragedy affecting relatives, friends or even citizens of your own country will naturally have more impact than numerous deaths of strangers in far off places.

I have no criticism of any remembrance days or ceremonies as they obviously have meaning for those involved. However, I do not expect everybody in the world to be equally involved in such events. Nor do I find it mean of spirit or an indication of a cruel nature amongst those not involved.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 5:52 am

I agree with CM, Aegis and many others that have posted that a life is life and equally much worth mourning wherever it is lost. However, to me personally the nationality of those dead doesn't matter, 3000 Swedes, 3000 Americans, 3000 Bangladeshian, 3000 Somalian....the only difference to me is if a death is a personal loss, and the 8.5 millions Swedes who are not my family and friends, are no more important to me than 3000 children in Mozambique dying in AIDS.

I do not agree that we should mourn the WTC attack more than other deaths because it is a symbol of the Western capitalistic world attacked. I think the millions dying of starvations and easily cured diseases is as much a symbol, a symbol for us in the rich world caring more about keeping our own comfort than caring about human lives and suffering. Our selfishness and greed is IMO more of a tragedy than terrorist attacks, simply because it cause a lot more suffering for a much larger number of people.

The western world and the US in particular, has the power and the money. This is of course reflected in media, and it is just a sad and disgusting fact that in our society, an American or European life is simply worth a lot more than the life of a poor, non-productive unit that a dying child in Rwanda is.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 6:50 am

I disagree CE. I disagree completely. Without meaning to sound incredibly harsh and malicious, the death of British people mean more to me than the death of Rwandan's or any other nationality because they are British and I can understand them more than I could understand an African's loss.

I subscribe to the theory that charity begins at home. A lot of people die in Britain through being homeless. Take Ireland for an example. During the 1900's thousands died through tuberculosis, illness and many other diseases. Even the English caused the death of Irishmen. I feel sorry for them, because we caused their deaths.

Some may consider me totally naive, incredibly selfish and self-centred but it's the way that I am. I still feel sorry for the people in foreign countries who suffer from AIDS, but I feel more sorry for the people who die in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland because of the poor healthcare offered by the NHS.

Thousands of people die because of the governments expenditure on external aid. When I go into London and I see people forced to live on streets because they have no recourse to go anywhere else I get annoyed with our government because they won't re-educate them, get them jobs and housing. England is a huge attraction for asylum seekers from destitute areas because as soon as they get in the country they are offered a free bed and food, where as the English people who don't have that sort of thing are kept outside.

I frankly get pissed off when people take advantage of our system of government. We just let them walk in and take their place in our country. They don't adopt to our way of life, they don't work and some don't even speak our language! What right do they have to do that?

Regrettably I think my opinion might be shaded because of these examples. I'm sure that African countries might need aid, but I think our country needs to be sorted before anyone elses.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 6:58 am

Originally posted by Nippy

Regrettably I think my opinion might be shaded because of these examples. I'm sure that African countries might need aid, but I think our country needs to be sorted before anyone elses.

I would change the last to "I think our country needs to be sorted 'while' helping the others as much as possible".

Sadly this (in the US) is only partly done. Instead money that could be sent to the poor, is spent paying countries to be friends with our allies.

And sadly as well, most of the money sent to africa will never see the starving, the governments are not like the "Western" governments and control of the money leads to control of the country.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:05 am

Originally posted by Weasel

I would change the last to "I think our country needs to be sorted 'while' helping the others as much as possible".

Sadly this (in the US) is only partly done. Instead money that could be sent to the poor, is spent paying countries to be friends with our allies.

And sadly as well, most of the money sent to africa will never see the starving, the governments are not like the "Western" governments and control of the money leads to control of the country.

I sort of agree Weasel. A lot of African nations have twisted governments but what can we do? We give aid, it goes to the government first.

Lets use Zimbabwe and Mugabe as an example. The black people attacked the white people on their farms, just because Mugabe didn't like them. Why should anyone bother to give aid when people do that sort of thing when they bite the hand that feeds?

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:06 am

Originally posted by Nippy

I subscribe to the theory that charity begins at home.

It seems to me you also subscribe to the theory that charity stops at home.

How much do you want the UK to improve before saying ok now we can help others. There will always be things to take care of even in an industrialised and rich country like the UK so it seems that we will never get around to helping others.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:06 am

Originally posted by Nippy
I disagree CE. I disagree completely. Without meaning to sound incredibly harsh and malicious, the death of British people mean more to me than the death of Rwandan's or any other nationality because they are British and I can understand them more than I could understand an African's loss.

I know many people feel this way, but I personally don't understand it. Because I am more familiar with Swedish culture and views and understand the Swedish mentality better than the Rwandan, I do not mourn them less or more. That is two different things to me, I understand the mind of a serial killer quite well but I don't mourn him anyway.

EDIT: I obviously meant to say: So degree of understanding has no correlation to value of a human life for me.

I subscribe to the theory that charity begins at home. A lot of people die in Britain through being homeless.
<snip>
Regrettably I think my opinion might be shaded because of these examples. I'm sure that African countries might need aid, but I think our country needs to be sorted before anyone elses.

I personally think charity should begin where it is most needed. At the same time, we are also a bit limited in what we can actually do to make a difference. I don't mind the idea charity begins at home as a principle, but I personally do think that with few exceptions, people who suffer here in the rich world suffer considerably less than than a millions of other people for instance in the Sub-sahara regions or Bangladesh.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:15 am

Originally posted by Nippy

Lets use Zimbabwe and Mugabe as an example. The black people attacked the white people on their farms, just because Mugabe didn't like them. Why should anyone bother to give aid when people do that sort of thing when they bite the hand that feeds?

The main reason to keep trying..to try and break a cycle. Sometimes it does look like a losing battle, but I personally believe you cannot give up trying.

We in the west cannot go in and run the place...even though we believe we could do a better job. We also can't turn our backs on the problems. And a middle ground to please all is very hard to find.

Now this not to say your country shouldn't think of it's self, but it mustn't turn a blind eye to the rest while doing this. (See Bush and 'some' of his ideas to get my meaning.)

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:18 am

@Nippy: If the UK (and other industrialized nations) could clean up their act at home first without affecting other countries, specifically third world nations, I couldn't agree more. No more exploitation of the third world natural resources, no cheap clothes produced in close-to-zero wage nations, no dumping of waste, etc.

There is a reason why both Africa and South America - both immensely rich in resources - are both poor and in complete turmoil.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:19 am

@Nippy:
I personaly cant see how the opinion that everyone should manage their own can be valid in todays society, Its not like any western country have any ability whatsoever to stand cut of from the rest of the world. I could see how the opinion would be valid (but still imoral imo) if we were able to manage without having any contact with them, but we are not, we are dependent of them to a rather high degree. Some might also claim that the western world have a responsibility for acts comitted in the past, living in britain im sure you know what im talking about.

I wouldnt like to call suport given to the third world "charity", it does imo suggest that it is something they should be thankfull for, while i personally think that is something they should demand.

About Mugabe he seems like a horrible person, but the attacks on white farmers was far from unprovoked.

Edit: seems Silur beat me to it.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:20 am

Originally posted by Tom

It seems to me you also subscribe to the theory that charity stops at home.

How much do you want the UK to improve before saying ok now we can help others. There will always be things to take care of even in an industrialised and rich country like the UK so it seems that we will never get around to helping others.

I object to that Tom. I have never ever said that we shouldn't offer aid to those in need, I merely said that we would be better set to offer aid if we removed what people object to. Anyone in this country has the right to stand up and say that we should concentrate on the charity required at home rather than abroad. I don't, I personally believe that sometimes giving to the Red Cross is right - I do give money to charities - but I also give to local charities. Things will never ever be right in this country, I know that, but I also understand that the NHS could be improved and should have more money put into it than other things. Stupid government legilsation that says better hospitals get money is ludicrous. Bad hospitals need money to get better, but we won't get that if we spread things too thinly. Things need to be budgeted better in my opinion.

Originally posted by C Elegans

I personally think charity should begin where it is most needed. At the same time, we are also a bit limited in what we can actually do to make a difference. I don't mind the idea charity begins at home as a principle, but I personally do think that with few exceptions, people who suffer here in the rich world suffer considerably less than than a millions of other people for instance in the Sub-sahara regions or Bangladesh.

You are right. People suffer in Bangladesh and Africa. But is it our fault? If a government takes upon itself a responsibility to help other nations because it is better off than others, why should it come out of that nation's (and it's peoples) budgets? I'll be brutally honest, I'm looking at this economically. I have no issues with giving to charities (as I have said) but I think that a government has more responsibility to it's own nation than to others.

Damn I'm terrible at debating.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:24 am

Originally posted by Nippy

You are right. People suffer in Bangladesh and Africa. But is it our fault?

Yes.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:30 am

Originally posted by Silur

Yes.

As I said.."And a middle ground to please all is very hard to find."

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:30 am

Originally posted by Nippy
You are right. People suffer in Bangladesh and Africa. But is it our fault? If a government takes upon itself a responsibility to help other nations because it is better off than others, why should it come out of that nation's (and it's peoples) budgets? I'll be brutally honest, I'm looking at this economically. I have no issues with giving to charities (as I have said) but I think that a government has more responsibility to it's own nation than to others.

Yes I think it our fault in many ways, the European colonisation of Africa is one of the the most brutal and immoral events in human history. Also, we continue to keep the power and riches in our part of the world by continuing to depleteing the 3rd of or their natural resources, as Dottie and Silur has already mentioned.

However, I think we should take responsibility for human suffering and help even when it is not our fault that they suffer. To me it is simply a question of humanitarian values and fairness. If a child with born with a severe neurological disease comes to me, shouldn't I help because it wasn't my fault it got the disease? No, of course I help, and the same principle is the basis for my idea on how the global responsibilities should look like - those with power, knowledge and resources should help those who don't have that and suffer. I don't like a world where the morality simply is that the weak gets weaker because the strong don't care or even use the situation to their advantage.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:37 am

Originally posted by Silur
@Nippy: If the UK (and other industrialized nations) could clean up their act at home first without affecting other countries, specifically third world nations, I couldn't agree more. No more exploitation of the third world natural resources, no cheap clothes produced in close-to-zero wage nations, no dumping of waste, etc.

There is a reason why both Africa and South America - both immensely rich in resources - are both poor and in complete turmoil.

As I read your "Yes" reply I was reminded of a quote:

Do not blame the son for the father's sins

If previous countries that took advantage of another nation because they didn't see the reprecussions in advance, what fault is it of ours? I agree that it was wrong. In fact, I would say that we would owe them reparations, but if a government stops the spreading of that aid to the people that need it, what can we do? Do we continue to waste that wealth? IMO an idea would be to have a central organisation for the NPO's to pool their money and spread it equally and get it to those that need. Someone who does not need to worry about image at home or abroad is better suited to do what they need to do.

Originally posted by Dottie
@Nippy:
Some might also claim that the western world have a responsibility for acts comitted in the past, living in britain im sure you know what im talking about.

I wouldnt like to call suport given to the third world "charity", it does imo suggest that it is something they should be thankfull for, while i personally think that is something they should demand.

About Mugabe he seems like a horrible person, but the attacks on white farmers was far from unprovoked.

As harsh as it may seem Dottie, they maybe should be thankful for it. In terms of cost we have spent more money on those nations (as a Western unit) than was perhaps what it was worth.

About Mugabe, the man has committed atrocities and murdered people. Why should he retaliate in a vicious way on people that have done nothing personally to him.

Originally posted by Weasel

The main reason to keep trying..to try and break a cycle. Sometimes it does look like a losing battle, but I personally believe you cannot give up trying.

We in the west cannot go in and run the place...even though we believe we could do a better job. We also can't turn our backs on the problems. And a middle ground to please all is very hard to find.

Now this not to say your country shouldn't think of it's self, but it mustn't turn a blind eye to the rest while doing this. (See Bush and 'some' of his ideas to get my meaning.

Perhaps so Weasel, but whatever we do is obviously considered to be reparations for the past. To "break the cycle" means to risk lives who go in and attempt to help. A worthy cause to die for?

I feel like Eminem when he got mobbed by thousands...