Login/Sign Up




Is it time to lay 9/11 to rest?
Society

lordhaines
Jun 04, 2009
10 votes
15 debaters
6
4
4
3
2
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

4
Yes, it was nearly nine years ago- get over it.


lordhaines
Jun 04, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I recently heard an interview in which Barack Obama still used 9/11 in his reasoning.

All I have to point out is that the USA funded the IRA for decades while they bombed and killed innocent Brit's. Yet after all of that Britain still stood alongside the US in the fight against Terrorism.

Yet ONE attack on the US and they suddenly think it is a new and real problem? Not only that, they think the world cares. There have been terror attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Baghdad and hundreds of other places. What makes the US think the world cares about ONE attack on them? We don't.

Even now, EIGHT years after the event the US still goes on about it, ans uses it in it's reasoning.

No-one in Britain speaks about 5/5 bombings in London like that, because we are used to it. No-one in Madrid speaks about their bombings like that either.

A message to the USA- shut up about it already. Move on or the terrorist have done what the achieved. Either that or respect the rest of the worlds bombings in the same way, and go after their culprits as well as your culprits. Start with yourselves for funding the IRA against your biggest Ally- Britain.

 
lordhaines
Jun 04, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: englishjack Show

I use the IRA because America expects the world to feel sorry for them for 9/11 yet funded a terrorist organisation for decades.

And A Red London Bus, and the London Underground are very much landmarks thank you very much. They weren't tall buildings, but they are symbols of British life. Something which 9/11 can not match.

I agree that the impact after 9/11 was more, but then again the US is the richest country in the world.

I have never said anyone should forget 9/11, on the contrary. However if you keep it in the limelight as long as this then it is only going to benefit the terrorists.

The planning of the London bombings were not opportunists, it was well planned and structured. Terrorists had already tried to bomb the twin towers in the early 1990's, and America didn't learn from it.

 
lordhaines
Jun 05, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackkodiak Show

I am sorry you feel this way, I personally do care about upsetting or alienating people. I care about solving problems.

A big problem of the aftermath of 9/11 isn't the pain the people feel, they have every right to feel that pain. It is the fact people make money out of books and films about the event, it is the fact politicians are elected on that basis, and the fact that the US media go on about 9/11 quite often, even now, when they know their views will be heard around the world. This isn't Kuwait or Barbados we are talking about, it is the worlds biggest media hub talking about 9/11 as if it happened yesterday. The extremist around the world are happy that one attack on the US can still ring fear through the US even today. See what I mean?

Take it out of the limelight, and you send a message to the world that you will not be affected by it.

That make sense? I feel for every victim of terror attacks throughout of the world, and feel they should never be 'forgotten', but there comes a day when you have to let it lay to rest and move on. Hopefully with Obama being clever enough to not use the word 'terrorism' in his speech in Egypt, the rest of America will follow. Terrorism IS the biggest threat to US lives, but it isn't a threat that you need worry about constantly. Let the government deal with it, and carry on with your lives.

 
lordhaines
Jun 06, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: englishjack Show

I do hope you are not deliberately trying to play thick, and trying to twist what I say. It is awful for your argument.

It was the US government that funded the IRA, not a few wealthy citizens.
The US wanted the world to stand against terrorism after 9/11 when it had already been funding it around the world. No surprise that most of the world groaned. That was my point.

It is YOU that keeps bringing the IRA into this debate, i used it to support one point, and you then turn it into a IRA debate. Please actually read what is written.

Symbols of a countries way of life is far more shocking to have attacked than buildings. Not many people here in the UK would care if you bombed Parliament. But bomb the buses and trains that the ordinary citizen use every day, and it hits home hard. That was my point. Not whatever point you try and twist it into. The terrorist attacked symbols of Britain. Twin Towers was not a symbol of the US, it was just a trade building.

I think if you actually gathered information on the UK terrorists and the 9/11 terrorist, that they were ALL sent to camps to be trained. The 9/11 ones were not full time terrorists, they were brain washed, just like 5/5 bombings. They were all linked to a big organisation stemming from Afghanistan/Pakistan, and used as pawns in a bigger game. You are stupid to assume these guys just made up the plan themselves. Same way you are stupid to think 9/11 terrorists were anything but opportunists themselves.

The police service of the UK found a lot of the bombs in the July bombing before they went off, and disarmed then, there were dozens and dozens. I know this because I was a Police Officer in those days. The affect of all these bombs would have out done 9/11 easily. But the UK stopped it, same as they stops hundreds of these cases every year.

And your final point just proves your stupidity and inability to read any of my previous points. I have NEVER said forget 9/11, I have said lay it to rest and get it out if the limelight.

Now before you reply with more points that twist what I say, making yourself look rather silly, why do you not actually read what I have written.

 
lankymjc
Jun 06, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Yes, yes it is.

If you're going to try to compare it to the 5/5 bombings in London, then already this argument has hit a tough spot, because comparing the two is not easy. So I'll stick toa a few important facts:

1) If you are not a Brit, please don't say that the underground and buses are just transport. That's like saying the Collessuem is just a round building, or Mt. Rushmore is just a rock. The red buses and the underground trains form a vital part of british society, and it would be a sore loss if those were ever removed.

2) This long after 9/11, and compare America's fear of terrorism to what it was before the attacks; still hyped up and panicky.

3) The day after 5/5, and Brits were again at the bus and train stations, moaning that they were running late.

4) 9/11 was America's first proper terrorist assault. Think about what britain was like after the IRA; most people continued with their lives anyway, not really affected. Comedians are doing sketches about the IRA attacks, whereas if a single person makes a comment about 9/11 that isn't full of reverance and sorrow they get lynch-mobbed.

5) Think about what the terrorists are trying to do; instill terror into ordinary people. After 5/5, the press fairly swiftly dropped it as they realised that the world carried on spinning and didn't stop just for us. I have actually known Americans who view America as 'the world' and don't seem to realise that there are other countries out there too.

ALso, something lordhaines has mentioned countless times and that everyone seems determined to ignore; no one wants anyone to forget about 9/11. e just want America to stop tlking about it every chance they get, i only makes it worse. If you would stop talking about it and let it settle, then you can carry on with your lives, and the terrorists have lost.

Keep going on about it, and people will live in fear even after the ones responsible have been brought to jusice, because every other potential terrorist can see just how easy it is to make a single attack and rattle the whole of the country, while in Britain we shrug it off and carry on.

Get over yourselves; you are not as important as you think you are.

 
lordhaines
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: purpleparrot Show

What about the families of the victims of the hundreds of other terrorist attacks the US has either funded or ignored?

What about the terrorist organisations the USA DOESN'T go after, and I shall tell you why they don't go after them- because they have not attacked the US. It is not a war on terror, it is a war on the enemies of the US.

Why should the world care about one attack on the US?

I didn't say forget about it. I said lay it to rest, stop going on about it and get on with life. The world has moved on, so should the US.

 
lordhaines
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: purpleparrot Show

Yes slavery should be laid to rest. No-one alive today did anything wrong in terms of slavery. So why hold grudges?

It is not the 'forgetting' 9/11 the world has a problem with, it is the way America bangs on about it, as if the worlds hasn't experienced anything like it before.

 
lordhaines
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

Less large scale? London attacks were several bombs, above and below ground. All 9/11 was was two planes and 2 buildings. More people dead does not make it large-scale. it makes it more unfortunate.

Over 200 Brit's died in 9/11. I am not saying it should be forgotten, but the world does not want to hear about 9/11 constantly as if it affects them, or as if they care.

By laid to rest I do not mean forgotten, I mean accept it happened, work towards never letting in happen again, but to still talk about it the same way EIGHT years later means the terrorists achieved what they wanted in only one attack. Move on.

 
thoughtprocess
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackkodiak Show

Hahaha. Love that last sentence.

 
lordhaines
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackkodiak Show

Britain has let things rest dozens of times over the decades.
Britain creates it's own terrorist because it is so liberal in it's acceptance of others that it allows people of any view to openly preach. Even on the streets of London where the July 5th attacks were, religious fanatics are free to preach hatred of Britain and promotion of terror attacks. People just laugh and walk on by.

You can attack Britain all you want, but the next day we will just complain that the transport is shut down, or that television is filled with news. Exactly what happened in July 2005. Day after the underground bombings thousands of Brit's complained that the trains were not running. Same in WWII, we just got on with it.

If you run around and scream and spend 8 years living in fear, and 8 years talking about one event constantly then the terrorists have won. If you do what Britain does and just shrug it off then they can never win. They want a reaction, don't give it to them.

 
lordhaines
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: brivapor Show

It is the USA's reaction to them which makes it worse. Read my rebuttal to blackkodiak. If you go on about it the terrorists have won. If you lay it to rest then it leaves the limelight and they have lost.

 
lordhaines
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

Well said. I agree. Such loss of life is never justified.

I have always said that if the worlds biggest power, and the worlds most influential media base keep going on about 9/11 then it does nothing but to serve the terrorists. After all, it will be American films, television and media that the terrorist will look to when deciding if they are making an impact. Until the terrorist organisation is safely disposed off then I feel it a better idea to make less of a deal about 9/11. The terrorist have won as long as the American population keeps rallying around it. The religious fanatics are sat in their homes right now with a smile on their face because their actions and causes are being promoted by the US itself. If you did not talk about it, or did not go on about it, and especially if the media didn't go on about it, then it would leave the limelight, and the terrorists would lose their means of promoting it. And all the while you could hunt them down.

 
2pezeshk
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
NO

 
lordhaines
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: brivapor Show

I do wish people would listen. I have never said forget it.

I have said get it out of the limelight. Stop the films, broadcasts etc, and stop your president from talking about it in foreign interviews. It all serves the terrorists.

 
kimham8a
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
yup

 
vancam
Jun 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackkodiak Show

Well said.

 
lordhaines
Jun 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The USA needs to realise that the world does not care about 9/11, it has it's own problems. Yet the US go around the world saying "9/11 this and 9/11 that". I was recently in Canterbury, Kent, England. And a few American tourists, overweight, baseball caps, cameras (stereotypical image :p lol) were talking about Obama's Cairo speech to a few local politics students. It wasn't long before they started preaching about 9/11, and the aftermath the world has felt since then. It was relevant to the private conversation in the cafe, so I do not dispute the fact they spoke about it. However, one of the students turned around and said... "9/11 who? You are not in America now, we do not care about such things here". Very true. My wife has a Honours Degree in Politics and the entire conversation made her chuckle.

To act as if the world cares about it is one thing, but to act as if the world should have sympathy about it is quite another. A loss of life is never a good thing, but to think the loss of American lives is worse than the loss of any other (albeit unintentionally) is disgraceful.

And as for English jacks comment bout 9/11 being skyscrapers.... so what? Thousands of them all over the world, nothing special.

 
lankymjc
Jun 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: englishjack Show

You say that the buses and underground are not landmarks, and no, they are not landmarks in the traditional sense. But they are very similar to the twin towers in a number of ways. They are something familiar and constant that the citizens of the city like to have around. They help 'grease the wheels' so that almost all business in the ciy works better. They both "have thousands of employees working for hundreds of essential companies". The train and bus company employees may not be directly working for the hundreds of companies that require them, but without the londan transport system the whole city would swiftly screech to a halt.

You list all these attacks that America has suffered from, and you notice one major difference between those and 9/11? America isn't still banging on about them. Why can't you do the same for 9/11?

"Britain shares this anxiety". Actually, practically no one in Britain is anxious of terrorist attacks. No one stopped using the London transport system after 5/5, because we Brits just get on with it. Yes, 5/5 was a tragedy, but we don't let that stop us from carrying on with our lives.

America can learn from it's mistakes without constantly waving terror attacks in the faces of it's populace. It's not the common man who needs to learn from the attacks, it's those responsible for stopping them. Only when they have discovered something help, like creating a plan in which the American 'common mn' plays a part do they need to draw attention to terrorism. Otherwise, constantly bringing it up is not only unhelpful but detrimental.

Is that interview on the web? Because I'd like to read it before discussing it.

 
lankymjc
Jun 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: englishjack Show

That website does not tell you very much. All I managed to pick out from it is this rather interesting quote; "The US has gone too far with Guantanamo Bay, Britain does not do that." Whatever problems she sees with Britain, she admits that the US are far worse.

Yes, the police are trying new schemes to crack down on terrorists and the airports have become stricter. This is my point; we learnt from the attacks, put into effect changes that are deemed appropriate, and then got on with our lives. Yes, the extra security is annoying. Extra security is always annoying, hence why it is never put in place until necessary.

It's not the common man that is the expert. In your example, the common man wasn't even there! All you pointed out was that the attack could have been prevented/lessened had the soldiers been allowed to fire. I fail to see how this shows the common man to be an expert.

What has the class system (or lack thereof) of America got to do with this debate? If the common man is in power, then you're in trouble; the leaders shouldn't be a 'collection of clever herd men' (Nietszsche, Beyond Good and Evil) but a single, not at all common man who is above and beyond the common in every sense. But that is beyond the scope of this debate.

Why does free speech have to be aligned with democracy? A democratic state with minimal free speech is possible; Jean Jacques Rousseau outlined his idea of the perfect state being one where it is democratically decided what is in everyone's best interests (the 'general will') and then free speech is removed to ensure the state continues to follow the dogma that was democratically decided to be best.

Yes, according to free speech America has to right to continue drawing attention to 9/11. I'd like to cite my family's motto; "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." Free speech doesn't mean everyone has to talk about everything all the time; it is important to know when to move on to more important and more current issues.

 
lankymjc
Jun 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: englishjack Show

My argument is not nullyfied; this debate is as to whether 9/11 SHOULD be discussed, not whether it's ALLOWED. Again; just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Obama can continue to go on about it, but it would acheive nothing and probly only make the situation worse.

Obviously if someone doesn't know about 9/11, then a careful explanation is in order. But the majority of the world DOES know about it, so continue to smash us in the face with it acheives nothing.

When 9/11 is mentioned in that speech, he is referring to how America has changed since then, and he moves on from that very quickly. But still, he shouldn't have mentioned it. Indeed, if America is told to shut up about it, it is only fair that we do too, so I admit that Britain shouldn't ention it either. But when we do it is far less often and it is only used as a landmark date to show when Ameica started paying attention to terroism. The point is, hardly anything more than two years ago is used during our speeches except as landmarks in time.

 
noukon
Jul 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: purpleparrot Show

My aunt was killed in the attack.

I'm Over it... it was sad, but its nearly been 10 years, and we've easily taken out more terrorists than the losses from 9/11.

Eye for an eye, We got them back... get over it.

 
+ Add Argument

6
No, the USA is still shocked by it.


blackkodiak
Jun 05, 2009
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

I empathise with your sentiments lordhaines, I really do. Many people from Great Britain have a personal connection to the 30 years of IRA attacks between 1970 and 2000 and I must admit I felt similarly during the events of 9/11 to what you're expressing now.

However, I must warn you not to walk down the path of comparing tragedies. There is arguably no-less constructive statement in the world than "My suffering is greater than your suffering." At the end of the day, statements like that make everyone small when compared to the worst-case (like, say Mogidishu). These kinds of statements needlessly alienate people, and can be used to rationalize turning a blind-eye to the pain that individuals suffer on a personal basis.

 
purpleparrot
Jun 04, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

What about slavery? Should that be laid to rest too? There are victims, old wounds, etc. Should every major atrocity be laid to rest?
I don't really have an opinion either way. I am just asking questions based on the terms or the debate.

 
blackkodiak
Jun 04, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
There is no "letting things rest". You can have all the truth and reconciliation you want, but the only fix for a hurt population is both time and a hastily-drafted UNSC resolution that grants you control of a sacred region.

 
purpleparrot
Jun 04, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Isn't the 9/11 attacks one of the most brutal attacks on American soil? How can you just forget about it?

Why don't you tell the families of the victims?

 
bookworm
Jun 04, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

I might point out that the attacks on London and Madrid were slightly less large-scale than those on the US. And it being a major event in US recent history, why should we forget about it? Obviously the rest of the world has gotten over it - it wasn't directed at them.
Still, I agree there is a time when it's time to stop using an event as reasoning for something - unless it's never been solved. Not saying that the problem of the 9/11 attack has not been solved; action was taken, even if it was the wrong action. It was just another aspect to my view.

 
thoughtprocess
Jun 04, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I can understand the argument that it is time to put 9/11 to rest in relation to it being used as an excuse to get away with murder, torture, spying and other travesties.

Other than that there is no putting this to rest ever if you care about life. I am obsessed with reading about the actions of the U.S. government in foreign lands, and I have come to find myself empathizing more and more with those who have been adversely affected by these actions. Even in situations where the U.S. may have been justified I still can't reconcile myself with the reality that people die because of the stupidest things like religion, race or country.

I live in NY and my father works in Manhattan so it was quite a shocking thing to know that so much pain and suffering was inflicted on so many this close to home. In reality though it doesn't matter if it happens 10 or 10,000 miles away. People died and there are thousands who still suffer daily because of it.

We should never just forget about what happened. We should try and learn from it and find ways to prevent such senseless loss of life.

 
englishjack
Jun 04, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

Lordhaines, I wonder why, in all your debates, you keep using the fact of Us funding Irish Republicans to justifiy your arguements, even though it doesn't have anything to do with the subject. Your point is incomparable to act of terrorism that launched a war. Pehaps you would do well to set another debate devoted to fascination with this question because here it just brings the debate to, what I beleive is called "trolling".

When you discuss the British bombings, you forget that those attacks were in a different context. While there were severe civilian casualities, they were not on the scale of 9/11. There were no substantial landmarks as was the Two Towers. 9/11 attacks were commited with more audacity and strategic planning, where as the London bombings were committed by eccentric oppertunists. People who aspired to be radical fundelmentalists. Britain's infrastucture was only marginally disrupted, whereas the 9/11 attacks knocked America's financial sector to the core; stocks and share prices plummetted causing an upheaval in wall street. But then, that was the intention of those behind this attack.

Lastly, 9/11 was a long drawn-out trauma with days of searching the carnage for bodies, for loved-ones, of heroic deeds from city services. Images of working people having to make such decisions of finality. The events that unfolded in 9/11 will not be easily forgotton. Instead this event, like it or not, is imbedded into the nation's history, along-side Pearl Harbour, WW2, JFK's assasination and other such rights of passage.

For Britain, the people who committed the London Bombings were eventually brought to justice. With 9/11, the perpretrators are still free from arrest. So, in that sense, it is difficult to turn away.


 
brivapor
Jun 04, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

Im saying, an event that huge cant just be forgoten about by saying u give the terrorists power by always thinking about it

 
englishjack
Jun 05, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

Associating the case of a few wealthy Irish-American descendants funding Rupublican dissidants in their anestoral homeland with 9/11 is disproportionate to the events and does not justify the attacks on the Twin Towers. Neither is it justified because America happens to be richest country.

May I remind the debate that the question is not "Does America deserve 9/11 considering it was funding the IRA?".

A red London bus and Subway are not landmarks, they're items of transport. Admittedly, they are popular items of interest for tourists. But, in terms of landmarks, St. Pauls, Houses of Parliament, Tate Gallery, the house Shakespear lost his cherry in are all landmarks, not cars or trains. That's like saying the Yellow Cabs here in New York should be landmarks.

The London bombers were oppertunists. None of them were organised professional terrorists, despite training in such camps. They did not belong to any recognised organisation. It was not a well planned or structured event; one or two of the bombers had failed to set off their bombs due to faulty mistakes and they didn't have a back-up plan.

The attacks on Twin Towers caused thousands of deaths, more so than Pearl Harbour. Therefore, there is no way this event can easily be forgotton. Neither should be it be so considering that this was an event that launched the US into a war, again like Pearl Harbour.



 
lankymjc
Jun 06, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

"No one alive today did anything wrong in terms of slavery?"

Are you aware that there are currently more slaves in the world today than there were at the height of the slave trade?

I just wanted to point out that mistake; i'm now heading over to the other side of the argument to make my actual point.

 
denverdannydee
Jun 07, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Like the Jews and their holocaust, We shall never Forget

 
frankiej4189
Jun 07, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

"I am sorry you feel this way, I personally do care about upsetting or alienating people. I care about solving problems. "

Such a constructive thing to say. In times of hardship (i.e. when there's PROBLEMS) isn't the best thing people can do is to band together, stand united against the enemies that wish to take their lives, show their enemies that they stand along side one another as one and they will not be intimidated and they will not succomb to the fear their enemies are trying to inject?


 
englishjack
Jun 07, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

I’m not trying to “twist” your words, only reflecting your question in an analytical method. What exactly is your argument? Is it that you disagree with the context of Obama’s speech? Or are you commenting on the Collectivism of 9/11? Do you feel, as is suggested by your comments, that the US doesn’t deserve the victimisation, because of alleged involvement with terrorist groups around the world? I think the problem is that you’re not asking the right question.

You’re saying that it is wrong to include the events of 9/11 in political rhetoric, in film and modern cultural media and that the US should move on. But, on the other hand, you’re admitting that such an event shouldn’t be forgotten, which kinda leads us into a blind alley.

I never said the 9/11 terrorists were opportunists, in fact I thought I demonstrated the opposite. 9/11 was a highly intricate attack organised by religious fundamentalists with a global network of professional agents. Whereas, the July 7 bombers was “a simple and inexpensive plot hatched by four British suicide bombers bent on martyrdom”, as found by The British Home Office in their official inquiry (M. Townsend, 2006, “Leak Reveals Official Story of London Bombings”, The Observer Newspaper). To date, the Home Office inquiry has found no evidence to back the claims of Al-Qaeda involvement in the July 7 bombings or the attempt two weeks after by another such group.

Also, I only argued against your point of the IRA because you used it in opening the debate- “I recently heard an interview in which Barack Obama still used 9/11 in his reasoning. All I have to point out is that the USA funded the IRA for decades while they bombed and killed innocent Brit's. Yet after all of that Britain still stood alongside the US in the fight against Terrorism.”

Then, in your rebuttal to my disproving such a fact, you said “It was the US government that funded the IRA, not a few wealthy citizens. The US wanted the world to stand against terrorism after 9/11 when it had already been funding it around the world. No surprise that most of the world groaned. That was my point. “

The IRA was NOT funded by the US government. They are, however, funded by a number of organisations based in the US, run by Irish immigrants and their descendants. Cambridge Professor Peter Clarke himself wrote that , as far back as 1911, Irish Nationalists were sent funding from ‘expatriate supporters in the USA’ (Clark, 2004, Hope and Glory: Britain 1900-200, London: Penguin Books). In 1981, the US Department of Justice won legal precedent by getting NORAID to declare officially that they were funding the IRA. This demonstrates both the conviction of US Government strategies against terrorism as well as their constriction by their own laws. Perhaps that’s where you based the assumption of US involvement in financing the IRA. Regardless, this gives less credence to your notion that the US getting their just deserts in the 9/11 attacks, which can be interpreted from your opening statement. It is a dangerous path when basing the element of your argument on conspiracy theories.

The scale of such an event, as 9/11, warrants natural expression of , what academics term as, Collective Memory, which is only natural that it should be through film and media. Such examples are seen in both WWI and WWII, Vietnam, Iraq and films that explored them. Comparisons can be drawn on Pearl Harbour; both events launched the US into war. And if people make money from this, then that is what is to be expected from a free-market society that celebrates freedom of speech and encourages liberal thinking.

That was what I was trying to say. But then it’s so darn hard when ya gotta a problem with, like y’know, reading, y’all. E;J)

 
englishjack
Jun 07, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lankymjc Show

Comparisons between 9/11 and the London Bombings were the subject of the debate right from the opening argument. But I admit that the London Buses and Underground hold collectively to an emotional investment within British society. But I was only correcting LordHaine’s point that they were ‘Landmarks’, which they are not. I stand by my earlier assertion that they are items of tourist associations as well as an essential means of London’s infrastructure. But they are not in the same context of two skyscrapers that, not only were part of New York’s skyline for decades, but also held thousands of employees working for hundreds of essential companies.

America has suffered its fair share of terrorist attacks before 9/11- the US Embassy bombing 1998, the bombing of USS Cole 2000, the Oklahoma City Bombing 1995, the Haymarket Affair 1886, where plant strikers clashed with police at an anarchist rally, the Red Scare letter bombings 1920, the F.A.L.N. bombings in New York between 1974-1979, the Klu-Klux Klan bombings and murders 1951-1966 (*Pa! that Jack be doin’ summa that there ‘Readin’’ agin!*)

“This long after 9/11, and compare America's fear of terrorism to what it was before the attacks; still hyped up and panicky”. …Of which Britain shares this anxiety. When considering LordHaines’ earlier rebuttal, where he disclosed his last job as a police officer and that Britain’s authorities disarmed “dozens and dozens” of bombs in the July Bombing, the “affect of all these bombs would have out done 9/11”, then Britain is correct to be…panicky. Furthermore, as the artillery discovered in July Bombing exceeded 9/11, as LordHaines divulged, doesn’t America have the right to “keep going on” about 9/11?

You say that America should “stop talking about [9/11] every chance they get” as it “only makes it worse”. Yet, LordHaines had earlier posted “Terrorists had already tried to bomb the twin towers in the early 1990's, and America didn't learn from it.” (LordHaines Rebuttal June 4th). How is America is to learn from their mistakes without a platform to discuss it?

In closing, just like to put to your attention a recent interview a Spanish newspaper, where Stella Rimington accused the government of exploiting the fear of terrorism within their political rhetoric, when passing legislation that restricts civil liberties. It would appear from this that, the day after the July Bombings, some members of Gordon’s cabinet weren’t so keen to be “at the bus and train stations, moaning that they were running late.”

*PA! He be at thit 'Readin'' agin!! take him out th' yard and whip it outta him. don't wanna be gettin' th' 'Smart' disease....dangnabbit!* E;J)


 
brivapor
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

not to make lite of those attacks on european soil, but the 9-11 event was way more fantastic a display of terrorist attack(Im not convinced it was solely terrorists)

bombs go off all over the world all the time, how often do u see gigantic sky scrapers(the twin phallic symbols of American global economic dominance?) brought down by air planes

 
teachme
Jun 07, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I can agree with many of you, arguing on both sides of this argument...but I'd like to argue for a middle ground.

I think it's good that Americans remain, to a greater or lesser degree, shocked by 911...because I don't believe it's something we should just "get over." In fact, I hope it resonates for as long as it takes to understand just why it happened...and most importantly, what America has done to create such animosity.

Many innocent lives were lost, and I don't believe anyone (or any country) has the right to dictate the length of time a country should be in mourning. However, I do hope the focus shifts more towards creating peace and understanding with the Middle East.

 
englishjack
Jun 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lankymjc Show


If “practically no one in Britain is anxious of terrorist attacks”, then why do we still have to take our shampoo in a see-thru bag when boarding a flight with Britiain? Who brought that rule in?!? Do I blame those terrorists now that everyone can see my nose-hair clippers and haemorrhoid cream through that damn bag?! And I’m sure LordHaines can verify from his previous employment, which he divulged earlier, that the police and authorities are still holding training exercises in anticipation of further attacks. In any case, I refer to my earlier disclosure of Dame Rimington’s newspaper interview. ( BTW, the source for the interview you requested is as follows: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Terrorism-Fear-Ex-MI5-Boss-Dame-Stella-Rimington-Claims-Govt-Exploited-Fears-To-Restrict-Liberties/Article/200902315224202)

When you say “It's not the common man who needs to learn from the attacks, it's those responsible for stopping them”, you forget that, as in most parts of the world, it is the ‘common man’ that is the expert called upon to consult in such matters, and, as often enough, it is the ‘common man’ that is a reliable source of information in such events. For example, with the bombing of USS Cole in 2000, a number of military personnel involved were on record as saying that they could have prevented the incident had they been allowed to fire upon the approaching boat with the terrorists and explosives on board. However, much to their exasperation, they were ordered not to fire upon the approaching terrorists, instead only to fire warning shots because to do so would be in violation of international Rules of Engagement.

America is, by its own means, a class-less society, where it exemplifies a form of meritocracy within the function of its own state, rejecting, as it had done a century before, the dogma of an elite securing an office. As America had since learned to embraced, an office is not for the privileged, but for the ‘common man.’

Also, one more point on this juncture, I had earlier sent a message to LordHaines requesting the exact speech from President Obama, that LordHaines refered to in his opening argument. This is not only so both sides can maintain the origin of this debate, to focus on the question, but also for another reason. That is, if Obama was addressing a global circuit with his speech, as statesmen do, then his speech is within the context of 9/11 being an international atrocity, which it clearly was. Whereas, if Obama was addressing his speech to the American nation only, then he was well within the context of free speech, a fundamental aspect of any country that embraces democracy to its fullest capacity.

Does America have the right to continue discussing the 9/11 atrocity within all its cultural means of expression? I fall upon my democratic privileges of free speech and self-opinion by saying “Yes, it does”.

 
englishjack
Jun 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lankymjc Show

So you admit that the American President has the right to continue "drawing attention to 9/11", thereby nullify your debate within the realm of the question.

Ah! But you suggest that he SHOULDN'T. Why is that? What possible detriment to where-ever would it be if President Obama continues "drawing attention" to 9/11?

Also, how would America go about itself NOT talking about 9/11? Imagine, if you will, a tourist family in the city of New York- "Momma, what's that damn great hole in the ground there?" "Timmy, well...it's best not to discuss such things." "But, Momma, there's woman over there laying flowers down and cryin' 'n' stuff. why she be cryin' 'n' stuff??" ".....who's ready for some ice-cream?"

As for the web-site I referred you. I was attempting to prove how Britain includes 9/11 in its political rhetoric. Perhaps, instead, I should have directed you to this -

http://www.davidmiliband.info/speeches/speeches_09_06.htm

It is a transcript of a speech given by the British Home Secretary David Milliband, a month before Obama's recent speech in Cario, in which he refers to 9/11. But then why shouldn't he?


 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

society Abortion alcohol america Animal animals army art ban BBC black Britain British Capitalism child children Chinese Communism control convinceme council Court crime criminal culture death death penalty Debate Democracy drugs Economy education England english equality ethics EU evil food Frankie Freedom Gay girls good Government Great Britain health House of Lords human illegal Internet Islam Judge Justice language Law lawyer Legal lesbian Liberty life love marijuana marriage men money morals murder music Muslim Obama opinion parenting parents peace people police politics poor Porn pregnancy prison privacy punishment race racism religion Responsibility Rich Rights School science sex slavery smoking social society Students suicide technology terrorism the UK UN United Kingdom united states USA VanCam Video Games violence war weed white women world