to think that if 9/11 had happened anywhere else we wouldn't be remembering it ten years on?

[wannaBe]

... or probably even one year on.

I am not taking away from how horrific it was for all who were directly affected.

But if it had been anywhere but America the world would have moved on and we wouldn't be facing wall-to-wall coverage ten years on. Even if it had been the UK only the UK would be remembering.

People from around 90 countries died in the attacks. That's makes it pretty much a global tragedy.

I'm trying hard not to be offended; just because it was one of the worst days of my life (and a long time after) doesn't mean I don't understand your point. This is why I think you are wrong (or YABU):

1 - For the first time in a very long time that number of people died in a a few hours.
2 - It was televised.
3 - The 6 degrees of separation. Look at the other thread to see how many people were really affected very closely. Many many MANY people where watching anxiously because they knew someone, or found out a friend knew someone caught up in it. Partly the international nature of the Towers, partly the constant international movement that is new since the 1970's. On this vast scale anything.
4 - Yes, it was a real wake-up call to New York and the US who have long failed to realise the gut awful reality of having terrorism on your own turf.
5 - All forms of media played a role - last minute messages from mobile phones from those on the planes, instant messaging through MSN etc, and the beginnings of email as anfor people to check on each other, in either real, or nearly real-time.

So, you are NBU to think that it would be different, but it would've had to have been a different time, a different world, and if it had been that different, earlier world, I can't help thinking that it wouldn't have happened at all.

bemybebe - "It is 9/11 i guess, but if one moves this event to another city/country it is no longer 9/11 the way we know it.

The world's business, military and political centres were attacked and they happened to be in NY, Arlington County, Virginia and Washington, and not in Moscow, Dehli or Nairobi."

That really is a very strange thing to say, and part of it incredibly arrogant.

It would by 9/11 as we know it in every other way. And that was the OP's point. If it were identical in every way, hijackings, planes being deliberately crashed, hostages taken, civilians leaping from windows, buildings falling, would the worlds media be focusing on it in the same way.

And yes I think they would, not because it happened in America, but because it happened on television and the images of those planes crashing, those people jumping to their deaths from the buildings, those buildings falling, are powerful, striking images that can never be forgotten. The TV images, and the recordings of the people who tried to call their loved ones, are unforgettable. It doesn't matter what business was taking place in those buildings when they were attacked, most people couldn't tell you the names of a business that had an office there, but they can tell you how they felt when they saw the planes hit and the towers fall.

And the fact that you mention Arlington Country, Virginia and Washington is interesting because I think it's fair to say that if you ask the majority of people about 9/11 they would talk about New York above and beyond the other places, if they remembered them at all. Which is a shame, as there were innocent people and real heroes on those planes and in those buildings too. But nothing is as striking or as memorable as the towers falling, and there are big towers all over the world.

There are world businesses, military bases and political offices located in cities all over America and (amazingly!) all over the world, not just in New York.

Which part is arrogant takethis?

Btw, the crash of United 93 was in Stonycreek Township, Pennsylvania of course. The White House or Capitol in Washington were, probably, the intended targets.

So, what is so "incredibly arrogant" about I said takethis?

Sovery - a quick wiki tells me...

Egyptian 1
Saudi 15
UAE 2
Lebanese 1

So none from Afgan (or Iraq)

pass

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability Sun 11-Sep-11 00:01:32
Afghanistan I understand (to an extent) as bemy just said, Taliban harbouring Al-Qaeda who were responsible for 9/11.

It was because they had intelligence that bin Laden was hiding out with the Taliban in Afghanistan. (They also threatened Pakistan That they would 'bomb them back into the stone age' if they didn't co-operate)

It was and remains a controversial decision to invade - but the Taliban were harbouring al qaeda terrorists, and al qaeda claimed responsibility for 9/11.

Cross post

9/11 is seared into the world's consciousness because it was filmed and then started going live on TV before the towers fell.

ANY city in the world where that happened it would have been on the rolling news
remember the coverage of Beslan or the Moscow Theatre siege

Any documentary about Tsunamis now has footage of the Indonesian one - and Charlie Dimmock and thousands of others have to watch it every time knowing that her parents bodies were never found.

the 7/7 bombers in London really cocked up their PR side because bombs underground do not make good pictures.
The image seared on the brain from that is the bus.

9/11 is also remembered as it was the first terrorist hit on the US
In Britain we got almost blase with the IRA in the 1970's but the Manchester bomb - images of shattered high streets etc etc

AND
Bush really wanted an excuse to go finish the war his dad lost
so Iraq was on the cards
and Rumsfeld had to go to Afghanistan to collect back the weapons the US fave them to fight the Russians!

mygoldfish "It was and remains a controversial decision to invade."

Whilst technically I agree with you, lets not forget that it is an operation approved by the UN.

"The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan established by the United Nations Security Council on 20 December 2001 by Resolution 1386 as envisaged by the Bonn Agreement. It is engaged in the War in Afghanistan (2001?present).
Troop contributors include from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Denmark, Belgium, Czech Republic, Norway, Bulgaria, and many other members of the European Union as well as South Korea, Azerbaijan, Singapore and a few other non-NATO members. The intensity of the combat faced by contributing nations varies greatly, with the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Denmark sustaining substantial casualties in intensive combat operations." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

The fact that even Russia provides bases for this mission is very telling.
The war in Afghanistan has much wider international support than one can judge from posts on MN.

"The image seared on the brain from that is the bus."

That's a really good point, thank you.

TalkinPeace2, you have said what I was going to say.

-George Bush taking revenge on Iraq for the perceived insult to his father in the first gulf war, even though 20/21 bombers were Saudi Arabians
-access through Afghanistan to the 'stans' of the former Soviet Union, where there is lots of oil and gas, had to get there before the Chinese
-revenge on Bin Laden/Al Qaeda
-US eyes opened to terrorism on their territory. I thought they would understand how awful it is after the Oklahoma bombing, but Americans/Irish Americans continued to collect money for the 'widows and orphans' in Northern Ireland. They thought it was romantic when they were paying for bombs to land in Northern Ireland and London but finally realised that it is bloody and nasty when the Twin Towers were bombed.

When I saw the Towers go down, I thought the attack was an act of war especially as it was thought that up to 50000 people had been killed and I hoped that the US would be restrained by the UN or whatever from going to war.

If the attack had happened at 10.30 New York time rather than 8.30 in the morning, 50,000 maybe 100,000 workers and tourists would have been killed.

YANBU. What happened was horrific. But I wonder where the memorials, the services, the plaques are, for the 30,000 children under five in the developing world that die every die of preventable diseases. The 350,000 women in the developing world that die every year in childbirth. The starving millions in Africa. Their lives were worth no less than those that died on 9/11. What happens in the developing world every day is equally is horrific. But we don't remember them. You have a point, OP, but you've made it in the wrong place, people here love a good argument, ignore those slating you.

creighton
as a kid in New York I would tear the IRA fundraising posters off the lamp posts.
My Dad asked me not to as he was scared of the repurcussions on him of being anti Irish - he lives in New York. I HEARD the Harrods bomb go off.
The USA just did not get that they were paying for people to die.

As a result of them getting hit, we in the UK got all sorts of anti terror money legislation
but NONE when the USA were providing funds to kill the British

by the way, I'm American.

Iraq was all about oil.
That is why Lybia got air strikes and Syria has not

Afghanistan is the result of a long standing US foreign policy cock up
My enemy's enemy is my friend.
The US armed the Mujahadin when they were fighting the Russians.
The Mujahadin turned into the Taliban / Al Qaeda
Bin Laden was radicalised by seeing the corruption in his country brought on by oil money - for whom the US is the largest customer.

A very old example.
The US armed Ho Chi Min when he was fighting the French
but then did not want to give him independence so he turned his weapons on them.

Some day the US State department will learn but I'm not holding my breath.
Robin Cook's "ethical foreign policy" did not stop Bliar after all

every day, not every die.

Totally agree with kerry mumbles. There have been plenty of false flag operations in the past

Also agree with the Op it is of course a massive tragedy that so many people died. However many people including innocent children die daily through the greed and desire for power of other nations. We are supposed to be living in fear perpetuated by the 'war on terror'. When all it really is doing what needs to be done to make the rich richer.

how does disrespecting the victims of the obnoxious views of terrorist assist the "innocent children?
Rich westerners are currently trialling a treatment for dengue fever that could save up to 10,000 lives a year
should they stop
or is that an OK facet of the businesses that went on in the WTC

two faced