NationStates Jolt Archive

The US wasn't full of panic and terror because they're a bunch of whiny hysterical crybabies, and panic and terror weren't absent in London because we all just get on with it and can't be shaken by anything at all. Not to belittle what happened in London in any way, but when two of your nation's most visible and prominent landmarks are attacked, and one is entirely destroyed (Not to mention the third plane), in a nation which hasn't seen a surprise attack for 60 years, it's pretty understandable that thousands of deaths and fairly massive destruction are going to be something of a shock.

On the other hand, we've had the IRA to deal with for decades, we've seen terrorism before (Lockerbie for one), and regardless of the scale of fatalities, all but one of these explosions occurred underground. If you listen to anyone who was around Tavistock Sq. you'll hear there was plenty of panic and chaos - hell a full day later there were still cars lying there with open doors as people had fled the scene.

So enough with the one-upmanship, and enough talking about how well the British are taking it compared to the Americans. The two attacks are not analogous, they happened to similar but not identical nations, and there are plenty of factors which explain why the reaction in the USA was more emotional and why the attacks had more of an effect on the populace. In addition, we've had a few years of terrorism to get accustomed to the situation (9/11, Bali, Madrid, Beslan); it is still shocking, but it's not a surprise anymore.

Whilst the anger in this thread is perhaps unneeded, I agree with the general sentiment. Bravo!

Whilst the anger in this thread is perhaps unneeded, I agree with the general sentiment. Bravo!

Daresay it is more confrontational than would serve me best, but it encompasses two of my pet peeves, which are people being disparaged when they had every right to their reaction, and people being lauded for nothing much. Thanks for the general agreement though. :)

Kindly watch the tone.

Kindly watch the tone.

Title excepted (And that was a quote of SB E-mail more than anything else), I sincerely fail to see any problems with that post. If the title is too much, feel free to change it to something more reasonable.

*snip*
Your sig is much more interesting than the rant. What do you think is so good about realism?

Your sig is much more interesting than the rant. What do you think is so good about realism?

It beats feudalism.

Or, in the case of NationStates, futile-ism. :D

Does anyone else find it slightly hypocritical that Gerry Adams sent a message of condolence to London after the bombings?

Title excepted (And that was a quote of SB E-mail more than anything else), I sincerely fail to see any problems with that post. If the title is too much, feel free to change it to something more reasonable.
I think Kat got annoyed by the tone in the first line, as did I. I don't think we're "hysterical crybabies," thank you very much. Especially given the number of times we've bailed Europe out of its own mess (messes that were largely a result of realist politics, incidentally). But that sort of conversation goes nowhere fast.

Erm, the fear in the UK was very local. Less than a couple of hundred miles away, no-one in the pub I was in even glanced up from their newspapers.

In the US, the fear was present on the other side of the continent.

So it is nonsense to deny that the culture here showed far greater resilience, and it is nonsense to claim that this observation is meaningless. Experience is a great teacher, and we have the experience to cope, no-one here is suddenly queueing up to sign away their freedoms, accepting the ID card proposals any differently for example. Compare to the Patriot Acts.

So I agree, the two countries are different. But I disagree with your attempt to stifle any comment on the fact. kthxbye.

It beats feudalism.

Or, in the case of NationStates, futile-ism. :D
I mean, you know that's not the only alternative, right?

The US wasn't full of panic and terror because they're a bunch of whiny hysterical crybabies, and panic and terror weren't absent in London because we all just get on with it and can't be shaken by anything at all. Not to belittle what happened in London in any way, but when two of your nation's most visible and prominent landmarks are attacked, and one is entirely destroyed (Not to mention the third plane), in a nation which hasn't seen a surprise attack for 60 years, it's pretty understandable that thousands of deaths and fairly massive destruction are going to be something of a shock.

On the other hand, we've had the IRA to deal with for decades, we've seen terrorism before (Lockerbie for one), and regardless of the scale of fatalities, all but one of these explosions occurred underground. If you listen to anyone who was around Tavistock Sq. you'll hear there was plenty of panic and chaos - hell a full day later there were still cars lying there with open doors as people had fled the scene.

So enough with the one-upmanship, and enough talking about how well the British are taking it compared to the Americans. The two attacks are not analogous, they happened to similar but not identical nations, and there are plenty of factors which explain why the reaction in the USA was more emotional and why the attacks had more of an effect on the populace. In addition, we've had a few years of terrorism to get accustomed to the situation (9/11, Bali, Madrid, Beslan); it is still shocking, but it's not a surprise anymore.

I agree totally. And I must say, people in BOTH countrys reacted marvelously! Its a beautiful sentiment to the human resolve. Things like that are enough to freak ANYBODY out!

Differences between the two.
7/7 = (As I heard some referre to it.) several bombs (4 with 2 unexploded found nearby) exploded on public transportation during a busy time of the day.

9/11 = planes carrying civilians were crashed into the WTC, in a Penn. field, and into the Pentagon.

Simiarities.
Civilians were targeted and Civilians died.

It doesn't matter who had the worse event, It doesn't matter who was attacked first/longer/more freqently. What matters is that Civilians died. This one-upmanship degrades the loss that all countries had at the hands of terrorists.

Does anyone else find it slightly hypocritical that Gerry Adams sent a message of condolence to London after the bombings?

Given he renounced "military operations" against the British over a decade ago, no, not really. As an American, I took it as a great sign when Castro condemned 9/11 and let US airliners land in Cuba.

Gestures like that remind us that there is something greater in being human.

Good show, dont listen to the idiots who only think of the London tragedy as another chance to get a dig in against the US.

I mean, you know that's not the only alternative, right?

Alternatives to reality cease to be effective in the long term when one has a mortgage to pay. :(

Given he renounced "military operations" against the British over a decade ago, no, not really. As an American, I took it as a great sign when Castro condemned 9/11 and let US airliners land in Cuba.

Gestures like that remind us that there is something greater in being human.and it also goes to show that even people who have different Ideologies and opinions about the US, can lend assistance when tradegy strikes.

I don't know who you're talking to, but I'll pretend that it was me and answer it accordingly.

Erm, the fear in the UK was very local. Less than a couple of hundred miles away, no-one in the pub I was in even glanced up from their newspapers.

In the US, the fear was present on the other side of the continent.
How is that a sign of resilience? When people don't care about death, they get the label of stoic heroes? There was a bit of panic, but the mobilization directly after September 11th was crucial to galvanizing an effective response to the attacks. Not to mention that September 11th was a much larger scale operation.

So it is nonsense to deny that the culture here showed far greater resilience, and it is nonsense to claim that this observation is meaningless. Experience is a great teacher, and we have the experience to cope, no-one here is suddenly queueing up to sign away their freedoms, accepting the ID card proposals any differently for example. Compare to the Patriot Acts.
The public didn't even read the Patriot Act. Do not blame the American populace for supporting a bill their legislators told them was essential to combating terrorism. Notice how in the US, there was substantial opposition to an ID card proposal, the REAL ID act. It passed by a parliamentary trick. I suspect it won't last very long. Compare.

So I agree, the two countries are different. But I disagree with your attempt to stifle any comment on the fact. kthxbye.
I'm not. I'm saying it's obnoxious to label Americans as "crybabies."

I think Kat got annoyed by the tone in the first line, as did I. I don't think we're "hysterical crybabies," thank you very much. Especially given the number of times we've bailed Europe out of its own mess (messes that were largely a result of realist politics, incidentally). But that sort of conversation goes nowhere fast.

Yeah, see, what I said was "The US wasn't full of panic and terror because they're a bunch of whiny hysterical crybabies,", which implies either that I don't believe the US was full of terror and panic, or that it was full of terror and panic but not for that reason. Either way, I wasn't calling them whiny crybabies, I don't think many people here will defend the US and her people as vigorously as I do on the forums. Except some Americans. And not all of them, mark you.

Not going to get into my views on how nations interact in this thread though plzkthx.

I was responding to Begark's thread post, which reads as a long-winded STFU to people discussing the subject in these forums. Clearly I disagree with the sentiment. Thus I point out the obvious realities that make the debate worth having. Where differences are observed, there are lessons to be learned. What they are, I do not always care. But I hate to see a whole topic closed because someone does not find it comfortable.

Your sig is much more interesting than the rant.

How come I can't see any of the sigs? Does it have something to do with my browser, Firefix, or something in my NS setup?

Yeah, see, what I said was "The US wasn't full of panic and terror because they're a bunch of whiny hysterical crybabies,", which implies either that I don't believe the US was full of terror and panic, or that it was full of terror and panic but not for that reason. Either way, I wasn't calling them whiny crybabies, I don't think many people here will defend the US and her people as vigorously as I do on the forums. Except some Americans. And not all of them, mark you.
He, like me, must have skipped over a few words the first time he read it. My bad.

Not going to get into my views on how nations interact in this thread though plzkthx.
Oh, come on. It's so much more interesting.

How come I can't see any of the sigs? Does it have something to do with my browser, Firefix, or something in my NS setup?

You have to turn them on. Go to your profile, then "Edit Options".

Personally, my reaction to 9/11 was at first the exact same at the majority of United Staters, all scared and gov-worshipping, willing to give away freedom for safty, "terrorist"-hating, flag waving. But then I realised how stupid I was acting, and it led me to question even the way I was before hand, and turned me into a dirty anti-american pinko-commie hippie peacenik ^_^

(by the way, I am not really a commie. Didn't want to give the wrong impression)

[QUOTE=Tactical Grace]I was responding to Begark's thread post, which reads as a long-winded STFU to people discussing the subject in these forums. Clearly I disagree with the sentiment. Thus I point out the obvious realities that make the debate worth having. Where differences are observed, there are lessons to be learned. What they are, I do not always care. But I hate to see a whole topic closed because someone does not find it comfortable.[/QUOTE}
Cool.

It doesn't matter who had the worse event, It doesn't matter who was attacked first/longer/more freqently. What matters is that Civilians died. This one-upmanship degrades the loss that all countries had at the hands of terrorists.

And what matters is what a united WE are going to do to prevent this type of thing from happening to anyone again.

US is hardly "united."

And accully, it's my opinion that the US has and will continue to cause it to happen to more people

I was responding to Begark's thread post, which reads as a long-winded STFU to people discussing the subject in these forums. Clearly I disagree with the sentiment. Thus I point out the obvious realities that make the debate worth having. Where differences are observed, there are lessons to be learned. What they are, I do not always care. But I hate to see a whole topic closed because someone does not find it comfortable.that may be true, but your post (in reply to Begark's) gives the impression that you people are Apatheic to Terrorist attacks...

Erm, the fear in the UK was very local. Less than a couple of hundred miles away, no-one in the pub I was in even glanced up from their newspapers.

It also gives the impression that your government isn't doing anything to protect it's citizens from such attacks and thus it happens so often that you can say that "Experience is a Great Teacher"

So it is nonsense to deny that the culture here showed far greater resilience, and it is nonsense to claim that this observation is meaningless. Experience is a great teacher, and we have the experience to cope, no-one here is suddenly queueing up to sign away their freedoms, accepting the ID card proposals any differently for example. Compare to the Patriot Acts.

what Begark is trying to do is cease the bickering of "oh, ours was much worse" and "look how well we're handling our attack" that does nothing more but downplay the loss of life that all these events took.

Kindly watch the tone.


:confused: I've seen posts way worse then this...it don't even compare to some of the others where no one even said a word about it :confused:

Again, with all due respect to the sufferers of both attacks, the point some English people would like to make is that what we have suffered is not enough to send us flying into a blind rage. Vengeance by violence is, simply, not how we're going to try to solve it. But we are determined to make a stand and say, defiantly and firmly: "We are going to keep going, tackling global poverty, resource abuse and oppression; we're going to make conditions such that you and the likes of you will not rise again".

You have to turn them on. Go to your profile, then "Edit Options".

Thanks.

Erm, the fear in the UK was very local. Less than a couple of hundred miles away, no-one in the pub I was in even glanced up from their newspapers.

In the US, the fear was present on the other side of the continent.

So it is nonsense to deny that the culture here showed far greater resilience, and it is nonsense to claim that this observation is meaningless. Experience is a great teacher, and we have the experience to cope, no-one here is suddenly queueing up to sign away their freedoms, accepting the ID card proposals any differently for example. Compare to the Patriot Acts.

So I agree, the two countries are different. But I disagree with your attempt to stifle any comment on the fact. kthxbye.

UK: 38 people dead
US:3000 people dead

see the difference???

"Again, with all due respect to the sufferers of both attacks, the point some English people would like to make is that what we have suffered is not enough to send us flying into a blind rage. Vengeance by violence is, simply, not how we're going to try to solve it. But we are determined to make a stand and say, defiantly and firmly: "We are going to keep going, tackling global poverty, resource abuse and oppression; we're going to make conditions such that you and the likes of you will not rise again"."


EXACTLY!

You will never wipe out the likes of Al Queda through violence and direct attacks. There will always be other sick of their shit lot in life who wants to take a swing at the ones they perceve as responcible. Help fight global poverty, imperialism, opressive ditatorships (stop supporting them, like the US does), and you will be helping to fight terrorism.

Think it's a coincidence that the nations and areas and cities with the most poverty also have the most violent crime and violence in general? Fight poverty, fight inequality, help those who need it most, and you make the world a safer, better place.

Bomb the hell out of people, you get bombed back. It's that simple.

Erm, the fear in the UK was very local. Less than a couple of hundred miles away, no-one in the pub I was in even glanced up from their newspapers.

In the US, the fear was present on the other side of the continent.

Wait, wait, wait. According to the first statement, you live in the UK, right? How would you know what went on in the US after 9/11? Were people in New York terrified? Sure. But down here in Florida, I don't recall anyone I know being terrified or fearful. Don't exaggerate. While the 9/11 attacks inspired a great patriotism among American people, the whole of the U.S. was not gripped with complete and utter fear. Also, I don't remember hearing about Big Ben getting blown to smithereens...a double-decker bus and an attack on a subway system, yes, but not a landmark like the WTC was. To compare the attacks is completely ignorant. If terrorists crashed two planes full of civilians into a national landmark in London like they did us, I doubt the English would be so stoic and resilient.

Alternatives to reality cease to be effective in the long term when one has a mortgage to pay. :(
Realism != analysis based in reality. It's a theory of international relations.

UK: 38 people dead
US:3000 people dead

see the difference???
*Shrugs*

In 1996, the IRA drove on separate occasions, a pair of one-tonne truckbombs into the UK, one into London, one into Manchester (my city), and detonated both after an hour's telephone warning. Had they not done so, they would have killed a thousand people easily. And they did this sort of thing on a fairly regular basis all over England and Northern Ireland for quite a few years.

It is easy to be complacent, to always expect a warning, but who knows, maybe one of those times there might not have been one. It is an uncertainty you accept.

There is no difference of kind. Nor indeed, much of one of scale, because when it comes down to it, the UK has had 30 years in which to get used to the idea of taking casulaties, and the US has not, whether people were killed or not is actually irrelevant to the process of desensitisation.

If having more people killed makes you feel more important, whatever, that is very far removed from the point I was making. :rolleyes:

Realism != analysis based in reality. It's a theory of international relations.

I assure you, my relationship between my checkbook and the bank is grounded in realism as well. :D

(I was making a pun. Sorry if I was being confusing...)

Bomb the hell out of people, you get bombed back. It's that simple.

Er... I'm still waiting for the Japanese to bomb anyone again.
And whom did the US bomb to deserve being bombed in Beiruit? Or WTC in 1993 for that matter?

I'm all for fighting poverty, making the world a better place, etc. But one must use the carrot AND the stick. Especially the stick when the oppostition wants to destroy the very ideals of liberty and freedom of choice.

I'm all for fighting poverty, making the world a better place, etc. But one must use the carrot AND the stick. Especially the stick when the oppostition wants to destroy the very ideals of liberty and freedom of choice.

Using the stick has a different purpose when the other side has sticks too. We use the stick to block theirs as a demonstration of strength and as a protective method, but as long as they wield a stick of their own, it falls to skill with the carrot to make any sort of progress.

US is hardly "united."

And accully, it's my opinion that the US has and will continue to cause it to happen to more people

By the term US I was not speaking of a country, I meant all the countries that have fallen victim to terrorist bombers. All of us (those counties) need to decide what they are going to do to help prevent this from happening in the future.

Sorry, I should not have capitalized us. I did it for emphasis.

To compare the attacks is completely ignorant. If terrorists crashed two planes full of civilians into a national landmark in London like they did us, I doubt the English would be so stoic and resilient.
OK, imagine a plane being crashed by terrorists into some other building in the US. Would it still have the same shock value the second time around? I doubt it. Don't you?

So when a country that has had to deal with exploding cars and garbage bins from the 1970s to the 1990s on what was sometimes a monthly basis gets a couple of trains exploded, it doesn't come as a big shock. Remember, over 4000 people had already died in all that Irish terrorism, albeit less spectacularly. But that steady drip-drip of casualties does mean that when something far bigger comes along, the ripples aren't that great. Hell, I'm talking about it on these forums but it's not even a conversation topic IRL among everyone I know. Just one guy I know mentioned it yesterday.

The US got a far bigger attack in terms of casualties and visibility, but crucially, without much precedent, apart from the Oklahoma City bombing and I believe there was a minor one in Atlanta at some stadium. So it was a bigger shock to the system not just because of scale, but because a lack of precedent had not desensitised people to the whole concept of domestic casualties of war.

You see what I'm getting at? If you don't feel this is a valid point, LOL. It's hardly a radical and original piece of social commentary.

US is hardly "united."

I did not say US, I said we. We should be united in what we do to stop terrorism. Terrorism affects all people.

I assure you, my relationship between my checkbook and the bank is grounded in realism as well. :D

(I was making a pun. Sorry if I was being confusing...)
My bad. I thought you were being thick. *smacks my sense of humor back into shape*

UK: 38 people dead
US:3000 people dead

see the difference???

The difference is scale only. To argue about who suffered the most or the longest is pointless. We should instead be talking about how to prevent things like this from happening in the future.

OK, imagine a plane being crashed by terrorists into some other building in the US. Would it still have the same shock value the second time around? I doubt it. Don't you?

Depends on what building it was. If they crashed it into the Sears tower in Chicago, or Empire State Building in New York, I'm almost positive the shock value would be the same. We're talking about thousands of people here, not 40 or 45.

So when a country that has had to deal with exploding cars and garbage bins from the 1970s to the 1990s on what was sometimes a monthly basis gets a couple of trains exploded, it doesn't come as a big shock. Remember, over 4000 people had already died in all that Irish terrorism, albeit less spectacularly. But that steady drip-drip of casualties does mean that when something far bigger comes along, the ripples aren't that great.

We've yet to see something bigger, and I hope we don't. But if something bigger DOES come along, I hope you're prepared to eat your words.

The US got a far bigger attack in terms of casualties and visibility, but crucially, without much precedent, apart from the Oklahoma City bombing and I believe there was a minor one in Atlanta at some stadium. So it was a bigger shock to the system not just because of scale, but because a lack of precedent had not desensitised people to the whole concept of domestic casualties of war.

Scale was all there was to it bro. If a bus in Miami got blown up and 50 people died, I probably wouldn't bat an eyelid either. Does that make the U.S. stoic and resilient?

You see what I'm getting at? If you don't feel this is a valid point, LOL. It's hardly a radical and original piece of social commentary.

Thanks for ignoring my other points. About you not living in America particularly. You can't tell me if two planes crashed into a huge English landmark and killed three thousand people your countryman wouldn't blink.

The difference is scale only. To argue about who suffered the most or the longest is pointless. We should instead be talking about how to prevent things like this from happening in the future.
Agreed.

Thanks for ignoring my other points. About you not living in America particularly. You can't tell me if two planes crashed into a huge English landmark and killed three thousand people your countryman wouldn't blink.
You're welcome. :)

Now I can't speak for other people, but I do know that the proof of principle has been established. That alone makes it less of a surprise. Still unpleasant, but come on, it is so patently obvious that repeat events have increasingly diminishing shock value. Can't be bothered re-arguing that point any more.

You're welcome. :)

Now I can't speak for other people, but I do know that the proof of principle has been established. That alone makes it less of a surprise. Still unpleasant, but come on, it is so patently obvious that repeat events have increasingly diminishing shock value. Can't be bothered re-arguing that point any more.And yet the terrorists still use suicide bombers.

Hey Al Quids.... you wanna shock the world and get your message accross...
howabout doing something really shocking...

Like building a Hospital or a School! Perform some Random act of Kindness somewhere out there!

Now, that would make the world sit up and take notice.

And yet the terrorists still use suicide bombers.

Hey Al Quids.... you wanna shock the world and get your message accross...
howabout doing something really shocking...

Like building a Hospital or a School! Perform some Random act of Kindness somewhere out there!

Now, that would make the world sit up and take notice.
Hamas are the biggest welfare program in the Occupied Territories. Strange but true. They do actually fund hospitals. One of the reason the locals aren't too quick to condemn them. Their own supposed government isn't doing as good a job. :rolleyes:

Sorry, my opening post was a little more angry and less explanatory than it ought to have been (Reading over, I can see why some might think I was calling Americans whiny crybabies, so sorry there as well. My grammar node was damaged...).

The point I'm getting at is that the reason we're 'handling this better' and not going all crazy-nationalism on ourselves is because it's a far, far smaller event, around 1/50 so far in terms of lives lost compared to 9/11, and because we have been dealing with terrorism for some decades now. I'm not even trying to say one country is right or wrong in their reactions, I'm just speaking out against all the people who say, overtly or implicitly, that the UK is doing a much better job of dealing with it, or more accurately that the US reacted badly, when really there's no fair comparison between the two events.

Again, I am in no way belittling the people who died in 7/7, 9/11, or any terrorist action. I'm just saying the Americans had something totally different to deal with and that trying to put them down, or to make ourselves look good, by commenting on Britain's calmer reaction to the event is not on.

By the term US I was not speaking of a country, I meant all the countries that have fallen victim to terrorist bombers. All of us (those counties) need to decide what they are going to do to help prevent this from happening in the future.

Sorry, I should not have capitalized us. I did it for emphasis.

My bad. You got no reason to apologize, I'm the one who mis-enterpreted and reacted rudely. Sorry :)