-- Posted by Glacialis on 12:11 pm on Sep. 24, 2001
Something that make's me chuckle cynically is, that the few thousand who died in the WTC incident, made the world react in such a way. People abroad are donating blood, and loads of money and help offers are given throughout the world.
Then, when 60 000 die in an earthquake in India, there's a small article about it in the corner of a newspaper, and maybe some humanitarian aid is sent there by few organizations, and the thing is soon forgotten in all silence.
So it'd seem that people in the western world are worth more than those in the third world. Hah. Humans. :hmph:
Any comments?
-- Posted by Amor Fati on 12:50 pm on Sep. 24, 2001
It's all about spirit. And, ultimately, about people being selfish. They ar enot doing this necesarily for others, but against something. Or for themselves. It's their way to reacting to something. Of rebelling against the ones who caused this, and showing them that they can't be broken. In the case of and earthwuake, who do you rebel against? GOd? Come on...You just feel sympathetic and move on. I mean there were wuakes in the States too, and the hype wasn't that big. But this time there's an enemy. As invisible and as hard to define as it might be, it exists. And people are being strong and showing IT that it cannot break them...And I admire them for this.
-- Posted by Girl Fly on 4:14 pm on Sep. 24, 2001
Androcentric bias is truly a marvellous thing.
There will be little to no consideration of the inevitable fatalities that air strikes in Afghanistan would/will [update accordingly] cause; it's seen as an eye for an eye. That the US is not targeting the perpetrators but rather more innocents is seen to be somewhat of an equal, and therefore permissable, act of retaliation.
It's a somewhat childish approach - "you took 6000 of ours, so we'll take 6000 of yours. Yeah, me and my big brother Dave are gonna make sure you PAY, rat fuck!"
-- Posted by CardsForSorrow on 4:25 pm on Sep. 24, 2001
*shakes head in sorrow, and walks away from topic*
-- Posted by JuggleFoe on 10:00 pm on Sep. 24, 2001
| Quote: from Glacialis on 2:11 pm on Sep. 24, 2001 Something that make's me chuckle cynically is, that the few thousand who died in the WTC incident, made the world react in such a way. People abroad are donating blood, and loads of money and help offers are given throughout the world. Then, when 60 000 die in an earthquake in India, there's a small article about it in the corner of a newspaper, and maybe some humanitarian aid is sent there by few organizations, and the thing is soon forgotten in all silence. So it'd seem that people in the western world are worth more than those in the third world. Hah. Humans. :hmph: Any comments? |
one was a calculated and savage terrorist attack, and the other was an act of nature.
sorry.
-- Posted by Amor Fati on 2:40 am on Sep. 25, 2001
My point exactly.
Anyway, what puzzles me is that people here are starting to admire bin Laden. He's become some sort of a hero over here. Poor guy, he's so kind and smart, but the system or whatever made him a killer. Bleh.
-- Posted by JuggleFoe on 5:42 am on Sep. 25, 2001
uh-huh.
and charles manson was a front for the c.i.a., not a deranged racist, trying to spark a race war between blacks and whites...
-- Posted by Glacialis on 12:21 pm on Sep. 25, 2001
Act of nature or not, they're still dead, and dead people are dead in only one way, so I think there should be at least similar amount of support. You can't really predict acts of nature, but if you've got any intelligence, you can see that something big is about to go down in the terror front, and should prepare for it.
Personally, I thought that they'd use one of those nuclear devices missing from the Russians to blow the heart of some heavily populated urban center, but still, I've been saying for a few years, that the fundamental muslims are soon going to do something big against USA. (K, I'll quit. It's turning into "I told ya"-type of text. :/ )
-- Posted by Amor Fati on 12:36 pm on Sep. 25, 2001
Nonetheless they should be punished.
-- Posted by Glacialis on 2:01 pm on Sep. 25, 2001
Yes, the people behind the deed should be, not all the Afghans. All who have the means are trying to get out of country, and those too poor to be able to flee, are left behind to be trampled by the US juggernaut, unless the US does actually target the terrorists (which I don't believe too much)
| Quote: "you took 6000 of ours, so we'll take 6000 of yours. Yeah, me and my big brother Dave are gonna make sure you PAY, rat fuck!" |
-- Posted by JuggleFoe on 5:08 pm on Sep. 25, 2001
| Quote: from Glacialis on 2:21 pm on Sep. 25, 2001 Act of nature or not, they're still dead, and dead people are dead in only one way, so I think there should be at least similar amount of support. You can't really predict acts of nature, but if you've got any intelligence, you can see that something big is about to go down in the terror front, and should prepare for it. |
yeah.
i guess you didn't realize that's exactly what makes it so tragic.
what? you want india to wage a war on earthquakes? here's a fucking idea, stop living there.
i have no idea how you can compare these two situations.
they're like apples and chainsaws.
one is nature, the other one tears shit to shreds.
-- Posted by Glacialis on 12:28 am on Sep. 26, 2001
| Quote: from JuggleFoe on 3:08 am on Sep. 26, 2001 i have no idea how you can compare these two situations. they're like apples and chainsaws. one is nature, the other one tears shit to shreds. |
I don't think you really saw my original point before the thing side tracked.
Do you think it's any less/different suffering those that get ravaged by an earthquake feel? They should be given similar global aid as in here. Now, especially if they're in an unimportant (considering the business view) country, they'll only get some crumbs and a pat on the shoulder: "Too bad. Sadly we must spend our money on sports arenas and entertainment districts and crap like that, so we can't spare any." Before one's own gains are at stake, no one's interested in what happens to the neighbour.
Victims are victims are victims. Suffering is the same no matter what the source. All this going on just feels like so much hypocrisy to me. What else would I expect from mankind?
-- Posted by Amor Fati on 1:04 pm on Sep. 26, 2001
I see your point, but I come back to what I said before. It's all about the fatalist nature of mankind. Earthqauke? Darn, we can't do anything, it happened, bleh. Sorry it did.
Terrorist act? Let's show those fuckers that they can't break us , let's show how unite and strong we are, how we all help each other! This global aid is, at it's bottom, selfish.
Now if there'd been a terrorist act in India or wherever, with 7000 dead, and people didn't unite in helping and fighting this, then you'd have a better point. Like i said before, there were major earthquakes in the States too, and the response was nowhere near what we have now...
-- Posted by Girl Fly on 1:37 pm on Sep. 26, 2001
I just remembered a quote I liked from the Yankee Stadium prayer ceremony - it was from one of the Rabbis speaking, I think, either that or the Arch Bishop.
I don't remember the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of "6,000 people did not die on September 11, but rather one individual, dying 6,000 times."
For some reason that brought the number home to me.
-- Posted by JuggleFoe on 1:41 pm on Sep. 26, 2001
| Quote: from Glacialis on 2:28 am on Sep. 26, 2001 I don't think you really saw my original point before the thing side tracked. Do you think it's any less/different suffering those that get ravaged by an earthquake feel? Victims are victims are victims. Suffering is the same no matter what the source. All this going on just feels like so much hypocrisy to me. What else would I expect from mankind? |
1. yes, they do deserve as much help as possible.
2. yes, humanity is fucked in the head.
if you've got such a problem with it, and i don't mean this to be an antagonistic statement, what are you doing to change that?
i mean, what's worse, victims of two seperate disasters getting entirely different attention/aid, or someone who thinks it's terrible, yet does next to nothing about it?
:shrug:
i, personally, can understand why these two situations are being treated differently, so i'm not getting myself up into a lather about it. you, on the other hand, are.
and as i said: what are you doing about it?
-- Posted by Glacialis on 2:23 pm on Sep. 26, 2001
| Quote: 2. yes, humanity is fucked in the head. |
Thankyou. That's what I wanted to hear.
I merely wanted to point out a thing that made me chuckle at humans once again, and see how people react.
As usual, I'm not going to do jack shit about it. In my current state, people whom I don't know mean nothing to me, unless their existance/end of it bothers me somehow (i.e. if my grandmother dies, I lose a good source of cash).
| Quote: i mean, what's worse, victims of two seperate disasters getting entirely different attention/aid, or someone who thinks it's terrible, yet does next to nothing about it? |
Those who aid and those who don't have probably good reasons for doing what they do, I'm not the judge of others business from other than my own perspective, and that I usually keep to myself, for obvious reasons.
The only problems with the thing are:
1. I'm fed up with the patriotic mumbo jumbo combined with testosteron-filled threats that come from every single media, so that I can't avoid it.
And 2. The waste of resources used in the coming retaliatory strike, unless it's targeted at the terrorists instead of Afghans in general.
I don't believe the US government has any better knowledge of the whereabouts of the terrorists than it did before the strike, so this "going to war" thing seems like a big joke to me (and to about 4 000 000 others in this country).
And I do understand why they're being treated differently by people, I just don't see how can they think like that, since it seems completely irrational to me. Dead people are dead people. Period.
-- Posted by JuggleFoe on 2:48 pm on Sep. 26, 2001
well, while i don't doubt the "we're going to war" stuff entirely, i think it's mostly just an act to make america, and the rest of the world feel safer.
i mean, i don't doubt that they'll wage war, even in some small capacity, but i don't know how deeply they'll fight this "worldwide network of terrorism" that we keep hearing about.
-- Posted by Robb Force on 11:49 pm on Sep. 26, 2001
Hmm, this is a pretty sketchy topic that has a large 'gray' area, like abortion.
However, I can't make a comparison between the earthquake incident and the attack and say we as humans are fucked up because India didn't get enough aid. I think it has a lot to do with the nature of the events. An earthquake is a natural thing, bound to happen when you live in a seismically active area, while a terrorist attack is human against fellow human and should not have happened. Earthquakes happen all the time, so we clean them up, but a terrorist attack of that magnitude is so shocking, so brutal, such a surprise, that it requires much more attention. It's something that shouldn't have happened, so we look to correct it and then try to prevent it from happenning again.
-- Posted by JuggleFoe on 5:28 am on Sep. 27, 2001
| Quote: from Robb Force on 1:49 am on Sep. 27, 2001 ...I think it has a lot to do with the nature of the events. An earthquake is a natural thing, bound to happen when you live in a seismically active area, while a terrorist attack is human against fellow human and should not have happened... |
yep. that pretty much sums up how i feel about this.
i once saw a bit of henry rollins' stand-up act on comedy central, and one of the funnier bits was about people who live on flood planes, and even though their entire life gets washed away every few years or so, they're just too stupid to move.
and that brings me to another point: the reason why maybe so much less money was sunk into the earthquake relief was the simple fact that the best way to deal with a situation like that is to move right the fuck out of there, to a place that's NOT leveled every few years, or decades by a natural disaster. that's probably not something that india would exactly encourage, simply for economic reasons. but if people wanted to move, it'd pretty much involve a singular effor by everyone involved. i'm sure some people are going to help eachother, within the migratory group, but something like a terrorist attack on an entire nation, in this case, one that shocked most of the world, is going to get more solid support.
why? as i see it, the only way to stop world-wide terrorism is through a strong, joint effort by everyone involved. we're going to have to make sure that everyone is on the same page at all times just to stay on top of this.
i mean, there's no "war on earthquakes", to my knowledge. once again, there's little to nothing we can do to stop them. the only courses of action are to either prepare people and structures, or as i said earlier - move them the heck off the fault line.
-- Posted by Glacialis on 12:19 pm on Sep. 27, 2001
| Quote: well, while i don't doubt the "we're going to war" stuff entirely, i think it's mostly just an act to make america, and the rest of the world feel safer. |
At least on our part, that has failed. People here seem to be more afraid of USA doing something stupid and causing WW3 than what the terrorists might do. 68% thinks that USA should drop all intentions of immediate retribution, and instead wait until emotions have cooled down. Only 10% are in any way in favour of the strike.
| Quote: why? as i see it, the only way to stop world-wide terrorism is through a strong, joint effort by everyone involved. we're going to have to make sure that everyone is on the same page at all times just to stay on top of this. |
Terrorism has existed as long as humans have, and I don't believe it'll cease before every last one of us lies dead and cold.
| Quote: and that brings me to another point: the reason why maybe so much less money was sunk into the earthquake relief was the simple fact that the best way to deal with a situation like that is to move right the fuck out of there, to a place that's NOT leveled every few years, or decades by a natural disaster. |
It goes down to private economy. Those areas have population for a reason. They're fertile, and in many cases because of the disasters. Ashes the volcanoes spew forth and the new soil the floods bring make the ground fertile.
-- Posted by Lacking in meaning on 8:26 am on Sep. 30, 2001
The resultant downturn in the world economy will kill more people than died in New York that day.
People are divided on this. It seems to me (based on my perception of general opinion in Britain) that there are two opposing groups of people.
1. It is the fault of America that these attacks have taken place. If it was not for American imperialism the hatred responsible for the attack would not exist. The event was a tragedy, but at least it has taught America and the west that their attitude towards the middle east is wrong.
2. Terrorism is unacceptable in any circumstance. Civilians have died. Innocent people. America and Nato MUST remove the capacity of terrorists to repeat this sort of incident.
To me, both are wrong.
People are either obsessed with self-righteous revenge, to 'prove' America's resilience and determination, or blinded by Political Correctness, determined to see things from the point of view of the good, honest, poor Arab Countries.
I think:
Pragmatism is what should dictate the American response. Don't kill anyone. Find Osama Bin Laden and his fellow conspirators, try them for mass murder and if they are guilty, lock them up for life.
Then you have to give the people of Afghanistan food, clothing, jobs, and a new government. It's tough, but if America wants to reap the benefits of being the only hyperpower, it has to pay the costs too.
You all know what I mean, you're all intelligent.
Thanks for listening to me (if you have, that is)