Thread: Reactions to attacks

Originally Posted by la lorientaise

Could this simply be because Britain is more used to a Muslim population and understands more?

I think it's because Britain is more used to terrorist attacks than America is.

Due to what? The IRA, or like mentionned in the first post, because GB is now immune to mulsim radicals as they all but decamate the remains left of the country anyway? (I'm paraphrasing but that's what its tantamount to).

Originally Posted by Sir Drinkalot

I think it's because Britain is more used to terrorist attacks than America is.

Bomb attacks are nothing new to the US. Take Oklahoma, Lockerbie to name but a few. The US is and always has been a prime target for many nutjobs and fundamentalists.

Originally Posted by la lorientaise

Could this simply be because Britain is more used to a Muslim population and understands more?

Was it because of the sheer scale and shock of 9/11 in comparison to the other attacks?

Why do people think the different reactions happened?

The reason is: Britain and Europe in general are more used to destructions on their soil be it wars or terrorist attacks, while to US it's a novelty. Add to it US official speeches that were designed to whip up hysteria and organise the American public in support of the pre-planned invasion of Aghanistan and future adventures in the ME.

When people are in shock they are very susceptible to manipulations: they can be easily persuaded to either continue with their daily life without overreaction, or to go and kick some arrse.

Originally Posted by Alma

The reason is: Britain and Europe in general are more used to destructions on their soil be it wars or terrorist attacks, while to US it's a novelty. Add to it US official speeches that were designed to whip up hysteria and organise the American public in support of the pre-planned invasion of Aghanistan and future adventures in the ME.

When people are in shock they are very suseptable to manipulations: they can be easily persuaded to either continue with their daily life without overreaction, or to go and kick some arrse.

I can totally agree with this.

Administrations have a big role in either de-escalating a crisis, or escalating it for their own purpose!

Originally Posted by la lorientaise

My own opinion is that the British reaction was a lot more muted and calmer than the aftermath of 9/11 where it seemed America fell into the grip of hysteria and paranoia and really came across as very anti-islam.

Could this simply be because Britain is more used to a Muslim population and understands more?

Was it because of the sheer scale and shock of 9/11 in comparison to the other attacks?

I suspect it's because you don't know what you're talking about. There was no generalized hysteria in the U.S. The American reaction was measured and deliberate.

Kudos to the Brits for also apparently handling it well -- no need to lord it over anyone. :rolleyes:

I watched some of the BBC reports and although they said that they didn't have enough info, they still speculated that it was Muslims. That still feeds into Islamophobia and who needs more of that?

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

I suspect it's because you don't know what you're talking about. There was no generalized hysteria in the U.S. The American reaction was measured and deliberate.

That is hysterical. America has received so much stick for how they reacted to 9/11. Do you not know that? It was extreme at times to say the least. The medias reaction was beyond belief eg Fox news (then again who in their right minds would watch them?)

Then there was the Governments....

Bush had been warned about attacks but it was conveniently forgotten.

They tried to link 9/11 to Iraq when Iraq had absolutely zero to do with it.

They conveniently forget that Bin Laden is a Saudi (my personal favourite) and prefer to link him to Afgahnistan.

Then there was the FBI reaction, Guantenmo bay..........

The US was acting rather rashly at times and provoked much international criticism during the Bush administration.

The reaction was rather extreme when you compare to the English and Spanish attacks.

On a personal level my Muslim friends received all types of abuse in the states to the point they hid their religion until they knew they could trust someone.

Kudos to the Brits for also apparently handling it well -- no need to lord it over anyone. :rolleyes:

Its not a question of lording over anyone its about following example and learning from the past mistakes (read article at the beginning). Though I do find it interesting to know why the American reaction was so different to the European reaction to terrorist attacks.

Europeans are better about fear when it comes to terrorism, but substantially worse when it comes to guns. I predict we'll see Norway enact tougher gun laws and somehow try to claim that this wasn't a fear-based reaction.

Originally Posted by Traveler

Due to what? The IRA, or like mentionned in the first post, because GB is now immune to mulsim radicals as they all but decamate the remains left of the country anyway? (I'm paraphrasing but that's what its tantamount to).

Britain suffered decades of bombing from the IRA. I think 9/11 was the first major attack ever to have occurred on the US mainland. When it comes to terrorist attacks the British are just much more used to it and know better how to react when one occurs.

Originally Posted by la lorientaise

Bomb attacks are nothing new to the US. Take Oklahoma, Lockerbie to name but a few. The US is and always has been a prime target for many nutjobs and fundamentalists.

Lockerbie actually occurred in Britain. It is the worst terrorist attack ever in Britain.

There may have been a few deadly bombings in the USA but nowhere near the numbers that Britain has endured.

We also, of course, suffered greatly at the hands of the Luftwaffe.

Originally Posted by Sledgehammer

I watched some of the BBC reports and although they said that they didn't have enough info, they still speculated that it was Muslims. That still feeds into Islamophobia and who needs more of that?

Islamists were the prime suspects in the Norway attacks because it is Islamists which are the most likely terrorists to attack most European countries at the moment.

And there are a few reasons why Islamists would attack Norway. Norway has 400 troops in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban. Norwegian authorities have also filed terror charges against Iraqi-born cleric Mullah Krekar for threatening Norwegian politicians with death if he is deported from Oslo. And another reason is the republishing of cartoons of Mohammed in Norwegian newspapers.

Originally Posted by Sir Drinkalot

Lockerbie actually occurred in Britain. It is the worst terrorist attack ever in Britain.

Yes it occurred in Britain but it was an American world airways flight that was New York-bound and the 190 victims (the majority) were American. It was also quite personal given relations with Libya and Gaddafi during the period.

I think 9/11 was the first major attack ever to have occurred on the US mainland.

I do see your point. America has been often hit at but from a distance. Take the burning of the US embassy during the Iranian revolution 1979, The Lebanese hostages and US embassy in Lebannon being destroyed, The bomb in Riyadh. These all paled in comparison to 9/11. In fairness I think the whole world felt the effect of 9/11 and you ve only to look in the airports to see the changes.

We also, of course, suffered greatly at the hands of the Luftwaffe.

It could be that England simply has a "get up and get on with it" attitude. As does much of Europe who suffered greatly during WWII. Spain didn't suffer that badly as they were "neutrel" (though its very debatable) during WWII but they have suffered from attacks from ETA and a harsh dictatorship that didn't win Spain many allies. Pearl Harbour must have been frightening but I don't think it would have affected people as much as the nightly bombings that London endured. People just had to carry on though. Its possible its just a mentality that has stayed post wars.