the people who were hurt the most by this attack are making noise about it in a forum in which they are the dominant consituents.
by exactly the same standards, you might be angry if the palestinian newspapers report massively on the latest israeli attack. but then, the palestinians aren't a world power, so nobody cares about them (which they should, and, as it happens, do), so we shouldn't be angry because they cry outrage when they are attacked. but when america is attacked, and its own people cry out about it (and admittedly, it has to be the most spectacular terrorist attack in recent times), they should ignore it, shut up about it, quietly and resignedly accept it because they're so big and other people hate them.
BULLSHIT!
they will react as humans. they will demand justice as they see it. they will spread the word of the injustice (if not from your perspective, it's an injustice from theirs) against them. they have that right, no matter what.
other nations will pay attention for a multitude of reasons: the americans are friends, and what happens to a friend is important; they are not friends (but not necessarily enemies), but they are a leading world power, and what happens to them affects everyone, so attention must be payed to remain on the ball; they are humans, be they friends or enemies or anything in between, and such a devastating attack has done so much damage to humanity (not to mention what may come after); and they might be enemies, so one must pay attention to learn what one can (although the public will only be fed a biased view of the damage and results and interpretations).
there are good reasons why it should be broadcast so.
: AHA, here is why I'm angry. I don't understand why
: americans is so important! WHY? Noone matters about
: ppl of other(ex poor) countries and countries that
: need help. Why others great countries(like GB, Russia
: and Germany) don't help these poor ppl that need help,
: why they help USA, USA don't need help like these ppl.
there's a terrible stereotype of americans. visit http://www.rinkworks.com/said/ to get an idea of some of it. other stories include the americans flaming an online british (i believe london in particular) newspaper, which was covering rather more local events, for not posting anything - anything at all - on a "big game" between two american states and the outcome. tragically, there is a great truth to that, and it's quite probably true for a large portion of the american population. these people might not contribute to anything outside their small minds, but they are still (sometimes, as illustrated above, most shamefully) human.
but america does help other nations. perhaps not generously, in general, and especially now they have another bush in presidential office, interested only in improving american affairs (selfish bastards, although they're hardly alone in such a list). however; the fact still holds, even if they are surpassed by nations who can afford it less.
and when do other nations help the usa? when does the usa need such help (aside from now, even though it could cope on its own)?
and with regards to helping america in this, what happens if this tall poppy falls? someone's got to try to become tallest, and plenty are going to. that basically means war. if america tilts so as to need help supporting it, those nations who do so will be remembered. they have self-serving reasons to help the usa. america is strong enough that other nations don't need to flee from its falling path for fear of being branded evil by the new world order, for the risk of it falling, as far as i see it, is small.
: WHY? It seems that HUMANS are only americans and
: others ppl are animals, monsters,... Only americans
: need and receive help, and the other can die if they
: want.
unfortunatly, that's an attribute of life: one's own tribe is most important; anything less than your own is lesser. it's a useful evolutionary tactic, in some situations. the human society has reached the stage where any kind of xenophobia is an evil. sometimes necessary, perhaps, but only rarely, if we all read from the same book (and i'm not meaning ANY literal book here, before anyone puts words in my mouth).
: That's why I'm very angry. I'm not angry that Archer post
: this message, but when I read it I was very angry and
: ...
you were angry because of america's self fascination, and i understand that completely. yet with such a tragedy as this, i find such anger falls by the wayside in light of the "bigger picture".
so many issues to explore from here. perhaps i'll go get some food instead.
: Mb I'm wrong I don't know.
i think, now, that your anger is justified, in essence. however; i don't think it's right in the light of this time. it's spectacularly overshadowed by the weight of the sheer tragedy.
with respect,
lank
