Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
BBC News - Viewpoint: Attacks strike at Norway's valuesLars Helle, editor of the daily Dagbladet, said "we must avoid being preoccupied by fear, like the US was after 11 September 2001. Rather, we must look to Spain and England and how the people of those nations recovered their freedom after the horrible terrorist acts of 2004 and 2005".
I found this quote rather interesting. In discussions with many people in England. Many people I ve spoken are rather proud that they didn't give in to complete hysteria and fear after the London attacks. In fact the reaction was rather subdued in comparison to the 9/11 attacks. The attacks were reacted to in a similar way in Spain. Why?
In fairness 9/11 was not just felt in the US but the world over. In Dublin mosques had their windows smashed and I felt disgusted at this kind of behaviour and there were many rash reactions the world over including the US. The war in Afghanistan followed quickly after. The reaction to 9/11 was in no way short lived. In fact even as recently as last year there was a reaction to an Islamic centre being built near the twin towers. I was astounded at this as none of the people involved in the centre had anything to do with 9/11. The US media does still seem quite hostile to Arabs and Muslims in contrast to the British.
In England People can accept that it was a minority of terrorists and not brand all Muslims as such. I have Muslim friends both in London and the US and they both feel really differently how they were treated post the 7/7 and 9/11 attacks.
My friend in America would never bring up religion unless in conversation as she feels the reaction will always be hostile in spite of the 9/11 attacks being 10 years ago. She was even asked "do you support Bin Laden seeing as you re a Muslim?" . My British friend has never felt any 7/7 blame towards her.
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?
Why do people think the different reactions happened?
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).
For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.
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.
"It is hard for me to imagine what "personal freedom" can unemployed hungry person who finds no use for his labor have. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and opression of one person by another; where there is no unemployment, and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not "on paper"." (Stalin)
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?
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.
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.Kudos to the Brits for also apparently handling it well -- no need to lord it over anyone. :rolleyes:
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.
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.
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.
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.I think 9/11 was the first major attack ever to have occurred on the US mainland.
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.We also, of course, suffered greatly at the hands of the Luftwaffe.
Last edited by la lorientaise; 07-25-2011 at 07:13 AM.
I don't really think Britain would have gotten away with treating Ireland the same way as the US reacted to countries in the Middle east such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN and possibly the US would intervene and people would actually care (unlike with the Iraq invasion). I think Britain knows what they are dealing with when it comes to the IRA and how to minimize reactions and publicity for the IRA as that is what they thrive off. Easier said than done but its what works. The media is the right arm of anarchy afterall.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.
Al Queda has been given more than enough airtime and publicity for their cause. I think that is why Norway is carefully contemplating whether to allow this lunatic Anders Behring Breivik speak and attempt to justify his actions. Could it just give his cause more publicity?
Also the IRA is a terrorist organisation and has no connection to the current Irish government and doesn't even have public support but people can understand that funny enough. Yet Al Queda was linked to Iraq despite having nothing to with them (as evidence to date suggests).
Last edited by la lorientaise; 07-25-2011 at 07:33 AM.