It has been two years, but I can’t stop wondering…

Remove all ads!

First of all, I’d like to say that I mean no offence to those people who lost family, friends or other loved ones in the 9/11 attack.

Two years ago Al-Qaeda terrorists took over control of two airplanes and crashed them into the Twin Towers. The buildings completely collapsed within a few hours. We all know the story, because many of us saw it live on TV. Almost every channel on Dutch television (and I’m sure this also happened in other countries in Europe and around the world) interrupted the normal programmes to give live reports from New York. When normal programming resumed, it was often interrupted or cancelled again, because President Bush gave speeches which they wanted to show live on TV. Like so many countries in the world, Holland participated in the three minutes of silence for those who lost their lives.


Now imagine this:
Two years ago two airplanes left Schiphol airport in Amsterdam. Soon after they lifted off, Al-Qaeda terrorists took over the planes, and they crashed them in the two largest building in Amsterdam. Among the people who worked in the buildings, and among the fire-fighters who tried to help, 3000 lost their lives. Would television broadcasting around the world be interrupted for live images from Holland, or speeches from Prime Minister Balkenende? Would the whole world keep three minutes of silence for the Dutch who would have lost their lives?


I wonder if there would be as much media attention and sympathy from the world, if the 9/11 incident happened, not in America, but in another country.

 

I think the attention and sympathy would be there, as well as aid from the U.S. if it was wanted/requested...But I don't think it would have spurred the change in attitude that occurred in the US after 9/11.

Like it or not, the United States is a global power. And unlike many of the nations of Europe and the rest of the world, we are no longer content to sit back and let terrorists blackmail us with fear. Our position changed from one of deterrence to attack with regards to rogue groups that wish to do us harm.

If this tragedy had happened elsewhere, I think we would have given sympathy and aid, but we would not have changed our stance from defensive to offensive.

** **

[ September 11, 2003, 15:23: Message edited by: Sir Belisarius ]

 

But it has happened in America, so, hopefully, we will never know. But since you ask, I believe the coverage would not have been so extensive. I believe one the reasons was that people started asking pretty soon : "so what is going to happen now ?". And let's face it, when the USA get moving, it has a much bigger impact then, say, Netherland (just to follow your example, Mesmero). Or any other country, for that matter.

Furthermore, I would like to pay my respects to the families and those close to the victims of the 9/11 terrorism act.

 

I think if a tragedy of this magnitude (3,000 dead from one attack)were to happen elsewhere, you'd see quite the same coverage. Let's hope we never have to find out.

 

I think that one of the reasons that coverage was so intense was the nature of the US target -- not only American lives were lost -- many countries lost their citizens to this attack. International coverage might have been slightly (SLIGHTLY) less intense had it been solely American lives lost.

That said, on this most miserable of anniversaries, let us pay respect to the people who died before their time.

 

I doubt the coverage would have been as extensive. The U.S. is the world expert on media coverage, and it is only natural that they would put more attention on events happening at home than abroad. However:

Amen to that.

 

Well, for one thing. There is no city like New York City. It's London, Tokyo and the most important: New York. No other city would have had the same coverage. Every city where something like this would have happened, would have had a huge coverage, but no city compares to New York. No other city is linked in any comparable way to so many other places of this world.

For one thing, no other place on the world could have produced so many pictures, because I doubt there is any place on the world, where you'll find so many camera-equipped international tourists and journalists and huge-media houses, having their central-office right in this very-city. Not to mention all the international companies being there and all the people from all the different countries living and working or spending holidays there.

And I do not think, that any city in this day and age is as famous as New York City.

Two the Amsterdam question. As said, no other city is like New York City. Amsterdam would have become big coverage, very huge coverage, but not in the same way like New York.

Let's hope something like this does not happen again.

 

I think that people wouldn't have cared as much.

Sorry, it's America, America and only America nowadays. That's why I'm proud to be an European. *No offense, my view on America is like that until someone does something big to change that view.*

My two cents.

 

US is the only country in the world nearly every other country can relate to. Wether people as individuals agree or not, USA has had most impact worldwide, and is so well known that anything happening there might as well be happening in the neighbouring country. There is the financial side to things as well, but certainly mere popularity in this case was enough. Plus, of course the US is recognized for the power that it is. So something as big as this happening to a country like that is sure to make everyone else concerned.

Obviously if the same thing had happened in any other country in the world, it wouldn't have been such a big deal.

 

Indeed? In tshetsenia in Russia(sp?) and in several countries in Africa this kind of things aren't all that unusual, but nobody just seems to care. WTC was ofcourse a great tragedy but it's not the casualties that cause the attention it's the nation and the fame of the building.

 

I can't speak as to how other countries would handle it, but without a doubt the U.S. media would have covered it. I feel confident that within a week the U.S. would have sent over volunteers, money, and equipment to help out.

 

Absolutely they would have covered it (just look at the ongoing coverage of the Middle East). I just don't think the coverage would have been as extensive.

I’d have to agree with you there, Snook. If there’s one thing the U.S. generally does, it’s to step up to the plate to help other countries recover from disasters.

 

Indeed. Personally, I think it would have been the way it is now if it happens in "some other country."

"And in other news, terrorists hijacked a plane in Holland and piloted them into [name of tall building]. We go now to our reporters on the scene..."

Then it would go to the scene for about five, maybe ten minutes. After that, they'd wrap up, and go to the football game.

Sept. 12th, 2001 had one story and only one story in the newspaper. I felt vaguely sorry for people who'd won awards and things that day, because no one would ever remember. If it had happened in Holland, it wouldn't even make the front page in the states.

Of course, look at it this way. Holland wouldn't have invaded two countries for flimsy, hollow reasons.

 

I was thinking the SAME thing! I mean, what nerve those 6000 people burned with jet fuel have - hogging the headlines like that!

I'm sure there were many many *very* important awards given out that were completely overlooked!

In fact, since it is such an Earth Shattering crime, I feel you should take it upon yourself to start now and find out who each and every one of those poor neglected souls was who didn't get mentioned for their award, because of the selfish burning masses.

Go you.

 

Let's be realistic here, one can say that it's on every channel for x amount of time, but seriously. In denmark for instance I'd assume people would bother for 3 days (approx time I experienced it being something disturbing in my every day), then it became just another historical fact up for discussion unless you had lost somebody close to you (or had friends marked by it).

I think we need to seperate sympathy and media attention and look at the quote, "the higher they are the harder they fall." We could consider this the battle of david and goliath, where US being the giant powerhouse got a severe smack to the head.
It's horrifying, but fascinating, and somehow unbelievable. I wouldn't have dreamed of this, and thought it was a joke when I sat with my buddy getting a live info feed just as the second plane hit the second tower (we sat in the train on our way home from school).

I think a lot of the media generation of the disaster was due to this aspect, and thus there's a lot more in it than a "body count". And as for that I don't think it would have caused the same uproar if it happened in another nation.

 

Mostly because Holland is a speed bump for Panzer divisions rumbling toward France!

 

Of course such an incident would be a terrible tragedy, as it was in New York. And the netherlands would certainly get support from my country as well as from the rest of europe. So, as part of the proven european emergency cooperation, dutch burn victims for example would be treated in german hospitals and german experts would be sent to help, as it iirc happened when that fireworks factory blew up.

Even though your first post is totally fictious I want to add my, as some people might say, unavoidable slant. Be warned
.
.
.
.
I understand your point, but there are simply countries where this can happen and other where it is much less likely. Why?
As a rule of thumb acts of terror in europe, south america or africa for instance were aimed on assets of a global player and his small middle east pet. These two cooperate so closely that in the eyes of the perpetrators of acts of terror, they have become indistinguishable.

Listen to people from the region where the troublemakers come from and they will tell you a story about (a) the brutal sanctions on a country in their region for 13 years thanks to the global player vetoing in the SC, (b) a notable dual standard for the violation of UN-resolutions when looking at the pet and the country in the region, (c) massive military and financial support of repressive regimes in the region by the global player, (d) massive support for the pet and (e) total indifference on that and the effects of it in the population of the global player himself. And you might notice that the people are pissed off about this.

And then 9/11 came and people said it changed anything. Did it? People were stunned, blinded by rage and deafened by fear. Someone had to pay, that was clear right from the start. Sure, 9/11 was an atrocity. Only evil people can do such a thing. THEY are evil. "Evil people who hate our freedom". This phony nonsense was reaffirming and convenient.
The perpetrators may be evil, but they are pragmatic and they don't act driven by the esoteric desire to do evil. It is sobering to have a look at the problems the evildoers point out, and illuminating. It isn't the mysterious and unexplainable "muslim" hate on the west that so conveniently explains about every act of terror. They have sound reasons for their actions. 9/11 was a wake-up call but no one really understood the message, or cared to. Because there was a more convenient explanation off-the shelf, that is, from the mouth of the leader of the global player.

So instad of solving the actual problem, the global player now is fighting phantomous, multipurpose terrorists who do evil because they hate freedom. Of course, it's that simple and because it is that simple the global player swiftly invaded that country in the region, among other things seeking revenge, and to officially fight terror (with the sideeffect of fuelling the rage existing already, "inspiring" even more people) and to spread other blessings, aiming on a perpetual war, as the leader said for perpetual peace. Seems as if this plan will work flawlessly, for the war part.

Insofar the idea you sketch about it happening in the Netherlands is interesting, but it ignores the big "Why", the reason why things like this happen. Even though the evildoers use bombs that kill indiscriminately, they don't target that way. They choose carefully. So when they target something in the netherlands, it's quite likely because there is a relevant soft target, and not because they have a deeper ideological problem with the Netherlands.

 

Sir Belisarius wrote:

Behind the sarcastic tone, there is the simple truth, that the Netherlands has approxamtely the same size and impact on world-politics as the state of Pennsylvania. And that Germany is about the factor 5 bigger and even was a huge part bigger as Panzer divisions rolled. Besides, the dutch founded the very city this thread is about.

Incidentally, I think a similar attack on Amsterdam had brought much more change about. The stress lies on "change".

[ September 11, 2003, 19:05: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

I don't know Yago...I think Pennsylvania could take Amsterdam on its own too!

 

True,

I've been to both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. They are a tough bunch.