Those are just two small reasons why you don't see extreme backlash to 9/11, but if you ask about it it's certainly there.
You're also making it out as if England asks tons of questions about the subway attacks a few years ago. Alex Jones, one of the men behind Loose Change, has also made many correlations between 9/11 and the London bombings in terms of power, governments, lies and conspiracies. Yet again there are many questions your government doesn't answer due to "national security" so I highly doubt you ought to criticize.
We do ask lots of questions, we've rightly investigated the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes who was shot in the head 8 times after the London bombings. But we've been here before, I've grown up watching news reports of bombs being set off by the IRA in Warrington, I've seen mortars fired at 10 Downing Street, I've seen vans and cars explode in city streets both in England and in Ireland. I've felt sympathy towards the victims and hatred towards the terrorists. The UK and Irish population know a thing or 2 about terrorism, we've dealt with it for years.
I believe that there is a correlation between the London bombings and Madrid bombings. But I don't think they are connected to 9/11 - simply for the reason that 9/11 was so much more complicated and required help from the inside for it to be set up. London and Madrid (and more recently Glasgow) with pathetic attempts to cause mass loss of life. They did indeed kill people, but their main objective was to cause fear and to terrorise people.
One of my main problems with the whole "War on Terror" thing is the amount of money spent each year fighting it. I'd obviously like to stop all terrorist attacks, but the number of people killed by terrorism is nothing compared to other non-news items which as the 40,000 children who die in Europe each year from industrial pollution. The 10,000 children who go missing each year in the UK due to trafficing, poor family environments, the 1000's who get killed on our roads each year. We could improve society so much if we actually got our priorities right.
But instead terrorism is an emotional merry-go-round where we can't get off. Our Governments use information to scare the population into loosing their rights. We spend $millions per victim preventing terrorism - when if it was about preserving life we have many other important areas to worry about first.
Its fine for my to critise the US - because all of the US policies are forced upon us - when we've deat with decades of terrorism already. We got dragged into a war that your shit for brains president started for reasons unknown. I hate the actions of my own goverment, and I hate the actons of the United States administration too. Many other people don't care who I know, because they are the white middle class that I talked about earlier. Even the pot smokers don't care about voting to leaglise cannabis or to do anything else to change their country because they firmly believe that they won't make a difference, and why should they bother? It'l only bring heat upon themsevles when instead they can go about their merry lives.
I live in a part of the country where people commute to New York City, and I'm living in a city where the planes that crashed into the WTC left from. There were people in my town who I had seen before, parents of people I knew who died, and if you think for one second that we didn't ask questions and still don't ask questions then you're wrong.
When you speak of LA riots I assume you mean the riots over the beating of Rodney King when people rioted to show the government that what they were doing was wrong. It was an example of people sticking up to the government more than it was a cultural group standing up because they had nothing to lose.
I'd politely disagree there - because if they have nothing to loose they are far more likely to rise up and stick it to the man. I'm sure the majority of white people were also outraged by the beating of RK - but they didn't get involved in rioting because they risked loosing their livelhood, their 9-5, house and car agreeements and having a criminal record.
Yes the reasons for the riots were different, the police beating the people isn't acceptable. It was the USA vs USA and people cared. And maybe thats why I have such contempt for the people who say "NUKE EM!" to anyone else who isn't American. It seems that any foreign life is less valuable than a US life which is completly disgraceful.
I'd also go further to argue that in relation to their communities they had everything to lose since they the people are integral parts of the community itself. After those riots police brutality took a steady and immediate drop and I can guarantee you it'll be a long time before police get away with anything like that again.
Absolute nonsense, please go and watch the 1000's of YouTube videos showing violence against peaceful demonstrations, the news stories which document the "hand full of bad apples". Police brutality exists all over the world at different levels - but that isn't the argument here.
-----------
Slightly OT - but sorta relates to the police state and cause/effect.
A book called Freakonomics (Stephen D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner, ISBN-13 978-0-141-01901-7) uses econimics to address real life problems.
In the early 1990's the crime rate in America started suddeny dropping and took everyone by surprise. Experts had been predicting it would get even worse and that a new "dark era" was emerging. But it declined to the lowest level in 40 years. Why?
These experts u-turned and started to point fingers at the reasons why it had dropped. Where did all of the criminals go?
- Innovative policing stratergies
- Increased reliance on prisons
- Changes in crack and other drug markets
- Aging of the population
- Tougher gun-controls
- Strong economy
- Increased number of police
- All other explanations (increased use of capital punishment, concealed weapons laws, gun paybacks, and others)
Guess which was the reason for the biggest drop in crime?
Hint - Tougher inprisonment was proven to be a factor - but the criminals didn't march themselves into prison. So a correlation was made between
- Innovative policing stratergies
- Increased number of police
And crime began to fall in NYC - the politicians rejoined because their tough policies were correlated to a reduction in crime. The problem is, crime went down everywhere - not just in NYC.
Now, the real reasons for a reduction in crime are very hard to swallow and cause a huge emotional reaction. The reason was abortion, and the Roe vs Wade case allowed some 750,000 women to have a legalise abortion after she won her case in the 70's. You may not like the theory that if a women who typically has an abortion (unmarried, often in her teens, or poor - sometimes all 3) that there would be less criminals. However, instead of a $500 illegal operation, any woman could obtain a $100 legal abortion. It was made more widely available.
The knock on effect, a generation later, the unwanted children didn't exist. Legalised abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalised abortion, therefore, led to less crime.
As the author says, its much more comforting to believe what the news papers, police and Goverments say - that their stratergies worked and that there was a correlation between crime and their policies.
"We have evolved with a tendancy to link casuality to things we can tough or feel, not to some distance or difficult phenomenon.
Crime dropping was an unintended benefit of abortion.
Now I'm sure you like to see the data, the arguments and for me to prove that abortion leads to less crime. Thats not my job, go get a copy of this book and realise that causal correlations are made all of the time in the media, by governments and other entities who have their own agenda.
Guns kill people? No swimming pools do. In the US each year roughly there is 1 drowning for every 11,000 pools (around 550 fatalities per year) of children 10 and under. Meanwhile there is 1 child is killed by a gun for every 1 million guns which is roughly 175 children a year.
The likelyhood of death by swimming pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million plus) shows that our reaction to a child being shot in the cheat by a gun is much greater than hearing of a child who drowned in the pool at home because there was nothing to stop the child falling in.
It's not nice, its not fun, but its facts based upon rational reasoning and math.
The likelyhood of any of us being killed by a terrorist is so small, yet the chanes of us dying in a swimming pool / driving / supermarket / bowling are much, much greater. Yet we (the US and the UK) spend huge, huge, HUGE amounts of money stopping his happening.
Why? There is no logical or sound argument against it.
* User terminated by remote request*
, but i saw many documentaries about 9.11 and i partially agree with html.. wtc building was better prepaired for similar accidents than pentagon building. And in case of american fuel wars died many innocent people - not soldiers (becouse they knew about it or it was only their job)
