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.

"Honestly, RIP everyone who died on 9/11. RIP everyone who died in the resulting wars. Honi soit qui mal y pense."

Very well said Portofino

just watched a programme on 9/ll from 3 peoples accounts of that day who were personally involved, the only thing I've seen as I've avoided it on TV all week. Even 10 years on it was still very emotional and left me feeling quite shaken - it was a huge deal, it was horrific and mesmerising and almost beyond comprehension and we all got the chance to watch it live on TV, almost as though we were there.

YANBU OP. Mass murder in other countries doesn't get anything like the level of press coverage and constant yakking on.

solid it's clearly taken you more effort to write a negative post on the issue than it would have done for you to have remained respectfully silent on the subject. That's sad really isn't it.

brass "yakking"? you refer i presume to your meaningless dribble

I really can't be bothered to keep reading.

More Brits died in 9/11 than did in 7/7. 9/11 is relevent to us because of that. 7/7 will not be so relevent to the USA

i see where the op is coming from

it this had happened say in pakistan i do not believe the ten year anniversary would be headline news but a terrorist attack or a military attack on such a scale killing so many people would be remembered and would change things for the countries involved to the extent it has with this attack has changed things for many countries, no i do not think that would happen

ent ant

Glitterkitten: why should anyone remain 'respectfully silent' about excessive, pointless news coverage? This mindset that people mustn't make any challenging or questioning comments WRT news stories or political issues that involved people dying because someone, somewhere might be offended is a dangerous one.

An interesting point about whether we would have so much news coverage if it had happened in Pakistan. Do you think Pakistan has as much news coverage of 9/11 as the UK? I don't.

Wow. A very tasteless way to flex your "Anti-American" muscle, don't you think? Surely there are nicer ways to insult us. yawn

SGB. Noone will make a difference by complaining during the most sensitive time, they will just look, well, insensitive.

Reflective comments may be appropriate, but in my opinion the news pictures at the time, the massive and instant loss of life, the fact it was done in the name of Alllah and spelled a new dawn of extremist terrorists are all reasons why it was on our screens. That day, literally, change the Western world. And as a Westerner that is the world I care most about.

solid it's not that someone might be offended. And I'm not quite sure where the "danger" comes in?!

It's about basic human decency. Recognising a tragedy on a scale never seen before and paying it the respect it's due.

It's not cost me anything, time or money wise. I've not had to give anything of myself away. It's just human. What's wrong with that?

Quite right Posie and glitter

Posieparker,

You said in my opinion the news pictures at the time, the massive and instant loss of life, the fact it was done in the name of Alllah and spelled a new dawn of extremist terrorists are all reasons why it was on our screens. That day, literally, change the Western world.

So ETA and the IRA were not extreme when they bombed innocent people? There have been fewer attacks in the UK since 9/11 than before it when the IRA were in their prime so it did not by and large spell a new wave of terrorism in Europe. The reality is that in Europe most people are safer from terrorism than they were before 9/11 and it has not changed Europe (I cannot speak for the rest of the western world as I do not live there). Since 9/11 ther have only been two fatal al-queda attacks in the EU/EEA but numerous more by other terrorist groups in the ten years before that (there is a reason why many thought ETA were responsible for the madrid bombings at first). The second biggest terror attack in EU/EEA in the last decade had nothing to do with al-queda and was carried out by a christian far right extremist in Norway. Why does the fact this was not carried out in the name of allah make a difference to you, why is it worse to be killed by someone's distorted view of islam, than someone elses distorted view of christianity, or national pride?

I do not remember 9/11 because it changed the western world, as it has not changed the world I live in, nor do I remember it simply because it was American, I remember it because three thousand people died horribly, and I witnessed many of their deaths on live TV. Possibly worse I remember witnessing them trying to survive whilst trapped and leaning out of windows. It does not mean I think the other attacks were not as horrific, but I was cushioned by only hearing about them after the event, I did not see the vistim's last struggles. I do however think that we should remember the victims of other terror attacks just as much, and I agree with the OP that if this had happened elsewhere we would not have such coverage. The Mumbai shootings for instance were also more or less live in many ways, and I do not think we will have such coverage on the ten year anniversary.

I think it was the sheer scale of 9/11 that makes it remembered, for a number of reasons:

• the ability to take down the Twin Towers and hit the Pentagon
• the visual impact of the TV images
• the huge death toll

That it was one of the great cities of the world magnifies it but its not the only factor.

There are a number of tragedies which are remembered forever. I think in some ways, the anniversary coverage of the 9/11 bombings is similar to that for the Titanic. Both were places where people believed they were safe - powerful statements to the success and capability of humans and both were destroyed causing thousands of horrible deaths.

There are some events which capture the imagination to such an extent that viewing figures will be high and it is worth making the TV programmes (particularly when the programmes themselves are not expensive to make).

Nobody forced anyone to watch hours and hours of news coverage. If you're still keen to go on and out about The Day You Watched Something Bad Happen On Telly (obviously this is distinct from anyone who lost friends or relatives in the attack) ten bloody years later that really would suggest that you need to get a hobby or something.

solid your flippancy and language paints a picture of the type of person you are and it's rather sad.

What harm does paying respect do? Are you too tough/bitter/unloved to understand basic human emotion and decency?

It's not 'basic human emotion and decency' to get yourself into a blubbering frothing frenzy about something that happened to people you didn't know, miles away just because you sat and watched it on the telly. I actually think it's a bit indecent to sit in front of the telly with your mouth open watching hours and hours of people dying and their friends and families mourning them, anyway.
At any given minute, something terrible is happening to someone, somewhere. The point the OP was making is that news broadcasting is selective and that some deaths are seen as more important than others. Can you remember the exact dates of the Rwandan genocide? When were the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? When did Pol Pot declare Year Zero in Cambodia?
ANd if you don't know, do you think it's because a) there wasn't so much mass media back then b) you were not born/too young to have any idea of what was happening in the world at the time c) not many wealthy westerners died in any of those situations?

Whose in a "blubbering frothing frenzy"?!?.

Respect can be subtle ya know!