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.

scuzy, I dint think wannabe is saying it shouldn't be televised - just pointing out that other atrocities with the same/more casualties do not get the same coverage.I think that is sad - why do we not recognise the victims of those atrocities in the same way?

scuzy on what basis have you reported it - on the basis that my opinion is that the media appear not to report/commemorate fairly? At no point have I said that 9/11 shouldn't be remembered - in fact I have explicitly said that it should.

My point, which I have specifically stated several times (in my own name, could easily have namechanged) is that if the same had happened anywhere else, the world would have moved on from it, even if as individuals we remembered where we were when we heard the news/witnessed the events.

The country where it happened would remember, but the world would not.

In media terms, some life is more worthy than others it would seem.

I fail to see how that makes me unfeeling - I have nothing but sympathy for anyone who has ever been killed in any terrorist event be they american or otherwise. But we are conditioned to pay more attention to some events than to others - and that is my issue.

9/11 was the origin for many movies afterwards.

just saw a series being advertised on CBS reality about princess Diana. but thats an american station. why would they do that??

Also OP American is a super power and so the wider impact is because it's America, the World Trade centre. A friend's sister from school was on the floors above the impact, she went into work early and she never came home.

We remember because every news room in the world focussed upon it, we all remember where we were....it affected us all and made us all feel a little less secure.

Over 3000 people lost their lives, countless others are dying due to the dust. Children have been left without a parent, husbands lost wives, wives lost husbands, parents lost children. It's irrelevant where it happened, families all over the world were affected and spend every day grieving for their loved ones. This is the worst thing to happen since world war 2 and it was the start of global terrorism that has cost the lives of tens of thousands at least.

I'm shocked that this thread has been started, it's shameful.

I have a newish friend who lost her father in one of the towers. Apart from the catastrophic way in which he died, which I know they'll never get over, it doesn't help them move on to have it splashed over the media every year and even moreso on the big anniversaries of it. Very difficult situation to be in. She'd have to cut herself off from TV, press and internet every year around this time. I'm not sure how she copes with it all tbh.

because i am sure many posters here have known or lost someone in the twin towers and i still think your point is not valid... its like your jealous or something. turn off the tv if it bothers you if you dont want to be "conditioned". simple as. if i lost someone close in the twin towers which thank god i havent i'd take much offence to your post as it sounds like your pissed your fav programmes wont be on due to commemorative programmes.

Dont understand the posters calling the OP jealous . I understand where you are coming from OP, but perhaps it could have been phrased in a different way - that because it was such a pivotal moment in history, it will always be remembered. And it was because it happened in the US that makes it such a key moment. And on a more personal level, being from the UK, I think we will always remember it because as a poster says above "it could have been London"; had it been India or Pakistan, then in the West we wouldn't feel that way so much, as it can be dismissed as a problem belonging to another culture.

camperfan its the only word i can think of as i dont understand what her point is... i understand its more televised than other tradegies but whats her point???

besides its AIBU and i feel strongly she is being very unreasonable.

scuzy, I think you are missing the OPs point entirely.

You can't condition anyone to pay more or less attention to something. Used to be that people said they knew where they were the day JFK died... or the day Diana died. These are points in history's timeline experienced and remembered by people all over the world. The size of the event is not as important as the shock value.

I see exactly what you mean, wannaBe, and I've often wondered the same thing.

Hmm, from what I have observed most of the 'wall to wall coverage' is analsing how the world has changed in the last 10 years rather than just going over the day itself. I do think it is important to look back on world changing events. I can't think of many other events that have had such a global effect.WW1 and WW2 certainly have lots of coverage.
I agree that there have been other events in which more people have been directly effected, but these are often natural disasters about which there isn't so much to analyse or haven't sent out ripples of change to the same extent.
Also you have to be well into your 20s to have fully understood the events at the time (not that anyone really did) so for some people this is probably the first time they have seen in depth coverage of it.

Cross posted scuzy - had she posted in a different way perhaps it would be easier to understand...that if it had been a less iconic building in a lesser known country, that despite a horrific loss of life, here in the West perhaps we wouldn't remember it to the same extent 10 years on. Which of course is wrong, but would probably happen.

have I said I have issue with there being coverage? no. But you carry on twisting it to your agenda if that makes you feel better.

What I have said, countless times, is that while of course 9/11 should be commemorated, if the same had happened in another country the commemorations worldwide would not have been on the same scale. Is it then not reasonable to question why?

3000 people died in shocking circumstances, no-one is taking away from that. But I think that even if the same had happened in London the rest of the world wouldn't be commemorating in the same way.

Agreed ladyM - as you say, most natural disasters are not followed by war.

but the americans remember the holocaust that happened here in the west? and many programmes are on throughtout the year on it

am sorry but i really still dont understand what the problem/point is.

maybe i should put down the bottle of miller.

(op sorry about my first post re idle hands got a bit mad)

The "problem/point", scuzy, is that it is a very interesting question why we remember some events and not others. The OP is trying to work out why.

it would of course! many nationalities have been to London!!! it would be perceived the same.

it was the number of lives lost, the terrorism (not natural disaster) in a country that many holiday in and have visited/lived that has such an impact on the whole world!!!

'am sorry but i really still dont understand what the problem/point is.'

Her 'point' is another sneer at America thread, this time using the murders of nearly 3000 people to do this.

Incredibly poor taste.

why?? my above post.

I know what you mean wannabe, and I still disagree with you.

It wasn't just an American event, it was an event that has had profound implications for the rest of the world. War in Afghanistan and Iraq was a direct consequence, and along with the US many other nations are directly (and still) involved in that.

So far that reason I think this was an event that will never be forgotten.

Sansa - I'm not sure we're reading the same thread. I don't see any sneering.