People who say "when's their going to be a memorial for all the Afghan civilians who've been killed by American bombing?"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

predictable whiners is my own opinion, even if I fundamentally agree with the point they are making.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Or.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:04 (twenty-three years ago)

er, that should be "there" not "their". although arguably that kind of person would mis-spell their question in the first place.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:04 (twenty-three years ago)

The problem with saying this is that it kind of assumes that its one country's responsibility to mourn everyone - I suspect that Afghans have their own days of mourning and customs of mourning.

I do think though as I said yesterday that some kind of official remembrance would be a good idea - if civilian deaths in aerial bombardment are regrettable but unavoidable, expressions of regret are surely not too much to ask?

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom - but the rest of the world is joined in mourning/expected to join in mourning for the WTC victims. We are not being asked to do the same for the people of Afghanistan.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:27 (twenty-three years ago)

That said, I think it depends on HOW such a statement is made. It could be a geniune act of trying to offer a sense of perspective, or it could merely be an attempt to undermine the significance of 9/11/01 (as I suppose we now have to call it), kneejerk anti-Americanism etc.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:28 (twenty-three years ago)

I think the expectation that people "should" engage in any form of remembrance is almost always wrong, and the WTC thing no less so. On the other hand I think it's very rude to interrupt anyone else's mourning, however mediated and detached the reasons for it.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:35 (twenty-three years ago)

Knee jerk anti-americanism, is it better than knee jerk pro-americanism. It is certainly understandable from a pro-underdog point of view.

― tigerclawskank, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:41 (twenty-three years ago)

What about kneejerk anti-anti-Americanism, which is what a lot of people here (incl me) seem to feel?

thought: anti-anti-US --> anti-anti-pop --> ILX ??

― Sam (chirombo), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:46 (twenty-three years ago)

"Knee jerk anti-americanism, is it better than knee jerk pro-americanism. It is certainly understandable from a pro-underdog point of view."

Knee-jerk anythingism is dodgy as far as I'm concerned.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:53 (twenty-three years ago)

hey don't forget, if it weren't for the Americans we'd all be talking German.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Halt dein schnabel, du kleine zwerg!

― tigerclawskank, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:09 (twenty-three years ago)

"Knee-jerk anythingism is dodgy as far as I'm concerned"

Thats was my main point - which I forgot to underline as I thought it was adequatly implied.

― tigerclawskank, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:14 (twenty-three years ago)

I think if someone really believes that Afghan civilian deaths should be remembered in a memorial, then they should do something pro-active about it. Otherwise, the sentiment smacks of rhetorical anti-Americanism which doesn't really honor any of the innocent dead.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:27 (twenty-three years ago)

Saying it publically is doing something pro-active Spencer. It is saying "I remember these other events and deaths; you should too". Going on about it today rather than on, say, the first anniversary of the start of the attack on Afghanistan or the anniversary of the fall of Kabul, does smack a bit of "rhetorical anti-Americanism" as you put it but on the other hand today is when these things are being thought about particularly sharply.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Vicar - that was the RUSSIANS. (Oh no! an angry Martin Amis is chasing me! Oh NO!)

― the pinefox, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:33 (twenty-three years ago)

I have said it before and I'll say it again: anti-Americanism is a chimera.

― the pinefox, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:34 (twenty-three years ago)

I think also it really depends how you put it. The idea of saying "Never mind your American dead what about these people" is offensive.

The idea of widening the scope of remembrance to take into account a fuller picture of the events of 9/11 and their consequence isn't, though. As in: there are innocent people dead today who would not be dead had the attacks of 9/11 not happened. We should remember them. No nationalities, no names. I don't see how anyone could object to that?

(NB there are also people alive today who might be dead if the attacks had not happened, most of whom are also living in Afghanistan. You can't deal in "mights" but it's worth remembering that too.)

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:39 (twenty-three years ago)

can you explain that pinefox? and is a chimera that monster that has lik,e the characteristics of three animals?

― vic (vicc13), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:40 (twenty-three years ago)

I have said it before and I'll say it again: anti-Americanism is a chimera.

No it's not. I myself am hostile to aspects of American foreign policy and the way that country is organised, and lean towards using "annoying" and "American" as interchangeable adjectives. I appreciate that this makes me a bad person.

anyway, I am going to have a good mourn week after next when it's the twentieth anniversary of the Sabra & Chatilla massacares at which a comparable number of people were killed to the 11-9 events.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:41 (twenty-three years ago)

"Thats was my main point - which I forgot to underline as I thought it was adequatly implied."

Mis-read your post... apologies.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:42 (twenty-three years ago)

I appreciate that this makes me a bad person.

Funny. In Brasil, you are a bad person when youre NOT anti-american

― vic (vicc13), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:46 (twenty-three years ago)

>Tom - but the rest of the world is joined in mourning/expected to
>join in mourning for the WTC victims.

Actually I'm not, and nor has anyone told me to (unlike the shutting of the pubs on Sept 14th last year). No minute's silence, nothing. Which is kind of cool. And it's a _gorgeous_ day here.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:48 (twenty-three years ago)

I work for THE MAN and we were told there'd be a minutes silence at 1.46.

But right on about the weather AND the Bertie Bowl's been sunk - not a bad day at all. The only thing that worries me is that the PDs are possibly the most sensible people in government here at the moment (NB. relatively speaking).

― tigerclawskank, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Actually I'm not, and nor has anyone told me to (unlike the shutting of the pubs on Sept 14th last year). No minute's silence, nothing. Which is kind of cool. And it's a _gorgeous_ day here.

I think they were encouraging a minute's silence at 1.45 pm. did you spoil this special day by talking through that minute?

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 16:11 (twenty-three years ago)

Ran naked through the lobby with a tatoo saying "the only good fireman is a dead fireman" .....but I was quiet so thats ok.

― tigerclawskank, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 16:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Expressions of regret over Aghans killed in the crossfire have occurred. It could be claimed that the White House and military are just paying lip service to the task, but to say the issue of collateral damage hasn't been broached is untrue.

In America American lives are more important than Afghanis. In New York New Yorkers lives are more important then the rest of the country. There is a pattern here. Even assuming all lives are equal, the further the victims lie outside one's environment, the less impact their deaths will have on you. Its not an absolute but likely true more often then not.

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 16:38 (twenty-three years ago)

My dirty little secret about this day last year is that I didn't have that reaction. The fact that it happened in the U.S. gave it an obvious political import, but my emotional reaction probably wasn't too far from what it would have been had there been a standard-issue massacre in Southeast Asia or Central Africa. I don't know if this means that I'm a selfish, empathy-deprived dick or just have an overdeveloped sense of international fair play -- but to be honest I spent last September being actively surprised that everyone was so emotionally hit by it.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 17:17 (twenty-three years ago)

I have said it before and I'll say it again: anti-Americanism is a chimera.

Do you never find yourself saying "I don't agree with official U.S. policy on (subject)"?

― j.lu (j.lu), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 18:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom, my response was based on the statement in the question which is perhaps set-up as a bit of whiny rhetoric.

The problem with the statement in relation or response to the fact of memorials to the WTC dead, is that it puts Americans on the defensive by suggesting that they and/or their government are no different in motive or action than the hi-jackers or Al-Qaeda. The statement then only serves to invoke the most clumsy and absurd moral relativism.

Which leads me to a clarification on my previous point about what is "pro-active". You're very right that the statement itself (especially outside of a reactionary context) is pro-active and gets people (me included) thinking. I would just urge those who feel strongly about this to actually do something even more organized and concrete than talking about it.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 20:45 (twenty-three years ago)

Spencer: yes. The question of the relative motives of killing should be secondary to remembering the dead, I think. What you call "relativism" I call "debate" but the point is that it is irrelevant in the face of the fact of death. Death is the one area where 'relativism' must hold sway: a death is a death is a death, and once brought to one's attention should be (however slightly) mourned.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 22:50 (twenty-three years ago)

one month passes...

On the one hand, the media-loving brain dead attached flag to all their cars, but still no one felt one bit of improved sense of community. On the other hand, the USA thrives on a war industry that requires willingly donated tax dollars to fund the proliferation of weapons and war through out the world. 9/11 was the tip of the iceberg of our what our proverbial comeuppance should befor allowing our government to create and fund wars that are for the military industrial complex and not at all for our people. Politics here is for corporate greed and war industry, the result of which is someday our war mongering status will come home to haunt us .. it is the US voter's asses who will be burned alive, it is the taxpayers who fund it who will be killed in wars that have no service to the people but the profits of a corrupt government. Conscripted soldiers will continue to die for profits, and like 9/11 , we will continue to piss of a world rapidly becoming nuclear capable right up to the next 9/11 where it will likely be a suitcase nuke in a major city.. blowing our assees to dust because the careless citizen trusted a government obviously bent only on political and corporate greed in the military industrial complex. We had it coming. Until we start throwing bricks in washington DC we can be sure it will happen again and worse. We need a million brick march.. or wait the day when it is our skin is flashed off our bodies in a nanosecond, moments before the whole mess is laid flat.. uptight people and all.

― nuke DC, Saturday, 19 October 2002 01:05 (twenty-three years ago)

Quaint.

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 19 October 2002 01:10 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

People who say "when's their going to be a memorial for all the Afghan civilians who've been killed by American bombing?" - classic or dud