egafd.com

So here we are ten years on.

A horrible, appalling event remembered through wall to wall tv programs with "those pictures" of the planes slamming into the Twin Towers. The tear jerking stories of loved ones spoken to on their mobiles for the last time. The firefighters' stories in which many were wiped out in seconds. The video clips of people throwing themselves out of windows holding hands. THe duststorms rolling down through Manhattan.

Number of killed in the 9/11 attack - 2976. A horrible, horrible event.

So now consider Iraq in 2011. Where are the wall to wall TV programs over the years of the Iraqi civilians killed, partly by the invasion, partly by subsequent violence, suicide bombs, car bombs, assassinations etc? Where are the tearjerking stories about families rent asunder when mother went to the market and never came back, the little kids finding cluster bomb debris and getting blown up? The human tragedies about families wiped out in an instant? No? Me neither.

Number of civilians killed in the Iraqi war and subsequent events. No-one seems to know. Bush, surprise surprise, suggested 30,000. I have heard loads of different figures quoted between 30,000 and 650,000.

So my question to forumites is, does the importance/sadness/horror/amount of coverage given to an event depend on:

1. Do we have video of the event, otherwise what do we look at on the tele?
2. Is it exciting and amazing like Twin Towers collapsing?
3. Does the event affect the good guys i.e. those Western types or the bad guys - anyone else?
4. Can the people delivering the tearjerking stories, speak English? Not many want to be arsed with subtitles, do they?
5. When does terrorist victim turn into result of collateral damage?

Balance? What balance?

CHeers
D

Hi David, there seems to be a view that westerners are more important than anyone else. I don't hold this view but it seems to be how things are generally regarded. 9/11 in the west is viewed as a mammoth event, something similar elsewhere doesn't seem to matter as much.

Do you remember that unspeakable evil act where that monster Thomas Hamilton went into Dunblane primary school in 1996 and shot dead 16 children and their teacher? That got world coverage, top story in every country you could name. Nelson Mandela commented on it and sent a message of support to the families, actors in Hollywood commented on whether violence in films could have contributed to making someone do something like this. After relentless coverage on the news in Australia, it was said that the person who carried out the massacre in Tasmania was inspired by what happened at Dunblane just weeks earlier.

If someone carried out an identical act in a non-western country it may get a brief mention towards the end of a news programme in Europe or America, then never get mentioned again. There really is a view that westerners matter more. Why, I dont know, but that is the case.

I remember watching the mini series on TV call the Path to 9/11 with Harvey Keitel.

He played this an FBI agent investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in and the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

In the drama he was working with the NYPD and at the end of each day the character Havey played went to this New York Irish Bar with his New York cop friends.

It was really big on the ?we?re all Irish Americans together? angle.

The message of the series was that terrorists are scum who must be tracked down and eliminated.

However at the same time I?ve no doubt NORAID would have been passing the hat round in these bars and the character Harvey played and his NYPD cop friends would have been throwing money in the hat to support the Republican fight in NI and no doubt helping to pay for bombs being planted in London, Birmingham and Manchester.

One of the positives to come out of 9/11 I think is that the IRA can never go back to terrorism because they could never count on support from Americans ever again.

I just can?t see Americans supporting terrorist causes again in the future, Irish or otherwise. Unless of course they are more stupid than I think they are.

Not Westerners, just White Americans. They genuinely believe they are superior species to everyone else. And in truth they are the most ethnically and DNA diverse nation on earth.

Arginald, I think westerners in general. Look at what I wrote above about the Dunblane massacre in 1996. And if you look at the vast worldwide coverage following what happened in Oslo recently, when there is a bomb attack with a massive death toll in Iraq or even Pakistan, it gets very minor coverage by comparison. So I think westerners in general.

max_tranmere wrote:

> Hi David, there seems to be a view that westerners are more
> important than anyone else.

It's a variant of whatever is closer to home..., where closeness is not necessarily defined geographically, but also culturally etc.

This is not just about how human lives are graded, this kind of importance grading goes right through the culture. Britain looks here at English-speaking countries first, European ones second, and the rest barely gets a look in. For instance, consider quiz questions at Eggheads. We often get questions on Australian geography or American sports, etc. We don't get the corresponding question about Europe (state capital of Hesse? winner of serie A in 2009?), never mind the rest of the world.


What got once up my nose was one of those Sunday morning ethics programmes, you know the ones in the Religion slot on BBC1. I think Alice Beer was the presenter. The morality of the bombing of Dresden was discussed. Ms Beer was at some point using the phrase that "lives were saved" as an argument in favour of the bombing, at which point I was throwing things at the telly. I suppose one can make an argument defending that raid militarily, and one could even defend if that sort of language was used by, say, Bomber Command (for whom citizens of the enemy are not lives but enemies), but if you are the host of an Ethics program...

A nasty war, ill-conceived by an American fool and a British egotist,
hastily organized with one of the worst casus belli`s in history ("weapons
of mass destruction"), with its "victory" hastily planned by men
determined to re-shape the Middle East. Any reading of colonial warfare
(the Americans in the Phillipines, England against the Boers), tell us its
initial success would turn ugly.
Long drawn out wars, particularly if they do not involve plenty of real
battles, quickly bore the general public. Sniping, car bombs and other
terrorist attacks, plus huge loss of civilian life, soon make folk switch to
another channel on TV.
Unfair , I know. The ironic thing about 9/11 is the sheer visual bravado
of the thing. I have a friend in Surrey, a film technician, who was called
to the telly by his son. Watching a plane hit one of the twin towers he
said, "Great effect son ! Which new action movie is this ?" Everything
on 9/11 was horrifying, just like Iraq, but it was all so much more jaw-
droppingly thrilling, action packed and astounding ! Thats life...or death.