9/11 tragedy: 10 Years On

[grim_tales]

Can't believe 11/9/2001 was now 10 years ago. RIP to all those who died
That said I realise its an important date in America but does it have to be marked here every year too? I guess 10 years is an exception, understandable.

[bradavon]

Now it's 10 years I hope it dies down each year, which it won't. I've not watched any of it. I wasn't involved, so sorry to say there is anything more than can be said.

What I find most bizarre is the London terrorist attacks barely get a mention. I think this is because Americans are still surprised terrorists would attack them, whereas it wasn't the first time The UK was attacked.

[luckystars]

The 7/7 bombings and subsequent attempts talked about all the time in the press...

[romerojpg]

lol

[thelostdragon]

R.I.P. the 2,976 American people that lost their lives on 9/11 and R.I.P. the 48,644 Afghan, 1,690,903 Iraqi people and 40,000 Pakistanis, that paid the ultimate price for a crime they did not commit.

[bradavon]

The 7/7 bombings and subsequent attempts talked about all the time in the press...

Of course but it's not all over TV with documentaries etc...

[Yi-Long]

R.I.P. the 2,976 American people that lost their lives on 9/11 and R.I.P. the 48,644 Afghan, 1,690,903 Iraqi people and 40,000 Pakistanis, that paid the ultimate price for a crime they did not commit.

My thoughts exactly.

All this focus on 3000 American victims is understandable,considering the tremendous impact it had, yet with so much focus in the press on THAT tragedy, no-one ever really seems to mention the HUGE amount of innocent victims elsewhere due to our tax-dollars at work...

[bradavon]

News has always been National (e.g - if 1 Brit dies it makes the front cover, everyone else gets mentioned second), Western, Everyone else focused since day dot. It's not right but how it's always been.

It wouldn't be appropriate to mention it "during" the 9/11 period too.

[grim_tales]

I agree with Yi and LD, but can understand the other viewpoint too. I remember (I think) Question Time that was broadcast just 2 days after 9/11 and those weren't anti-American or those paying respects to those who died were shouted down in the audience. It was difficult to watch.
Romero why "lol"?

[Markgway]

Question Time's audience is deliberately packed with anti-American lefties and Daily Mail-hating Guardian readers. It does not accurately represent the country entire - only a small section of it that subscribes to the same left-wing agenda as the BBC.

[grim_tales]

And the BBC is supposed to be impartial....

[Markgway]

And the BBC is supposed to be impartial....

[bradavon]

I remember (I think) Question Time that was broadcast just 2 days after 9/11 and those weren't anti-American or those paying respects to those who died were shouted down in the audience.

Why were they shouted at?

Question Time's audience is deliberately packed with anti-American lefties and Daily Mail-hating Guardian readers.

From my experience, it's the opposite. It often has people with right wing views in the audience.

It's easy to hate the Daily Mail too . Not incidentally because what they write about or it's political leanings but because the writing is largely so poor and it mostly reports subjects that are drivel. The Guardian, Independent, Times etc... have much stronger journalists working for them.

Do you have evidence to say the Beeb hand picks the audience? It's open to anyone who wants to go along.

[Markgway]

Why were they shouted at?

Like I said, because the audience was stacked with those who thought America had it coming and bluntly said so. The show was a disgrace coming mere days after the tragedy when wounds were fresh.

From my experience, it's the opposite. It often has people with right wing views in the audience.

You're not serious!?! Do you actually watch the show every week?

It's easy to hate the Daily Mail too . Not incidentally because what they write about or it's political leanings but because the writing is largely so poor and it mostly reports subjects that are drivel. The Guardian, Independent, Times etc... have much stronger journalists working for them.

It always depends on the writer and the topic. I'm sure you can find shitty articles in ALL of the aforementioned papers; I myself don't like tabloid gossip and showbiz drivel, but the political articles are usually professionally done. The Daily Mail is hated by the left-wing establishment (expressly because of what it stands for) who conveniently forget to mention that it outsells all the left-wing rags put together. More people by the Beano than the Guardian.

Do you have evidence to say the Beeb hand picks the audience? It's open to anyone who wants to go along.

You have to apply in writing to be invited and they first ask questions about your poitics.

[grim_tales]

And the BBC is supposed to be impartial....

Thats what they say but I still think theyre biased to an extent. They wouldnt broadcast recent appeals for Gaza/Palestine, their excuse was it would be biased to do so - why?
Mark is right, some members of the audience on QT only talked about the bad things America did, "the world despises the United States" etc, an appalling thing to say so soon after the tragedy killings. A disgrace

[bradavon]

You're not serious!?! Do you actually watch the show every week?

Probably twice a month. Your example above is more right wing for instance. Lefties are more likely to be sympathetic to 9/11.

The Daily Mail is hated by the left-wing establishment (expressly because of what it stands for) who conveniently forget to mention that it outsells all the left-wing rags put together. More people by the Beano than the Guardian.

I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the case. It doesn't mean it has good writing. I meant in general, you can always find examples to oppose this.

They wouldnt broadcast recent appeals for Gaza/Palestine, their excuse was it would be biased to do so - why?

Surely it's obvious, no?

[Markgway]

Lefties are more likely to be sympathetic to 9/11.

[grim_tales]

You're not serious!?! Do you actually watch the show every week?

Probably twice a month. Your example above is more right wing for instance. Lefties are more likely to be sympathetic to 9/11.

The Daily Mail is hated by the left-wing establishment (expressly because of what it stands for) who conveniently forget to mention that it outsells all the left-wing rags put together. More people by the Beano than the Guardian.

I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the case. It doesn't mean it has good writing. I meant in general, you can always find examples to oppose this.

They wouldnt broadcast recent appeals for Gaza/Palestine, their excuse was it would be biased to do so - why?

Surely it's obvious, no?

Couldn't they just say the appeal is about helping people without mentioning the political situation?