The United States OWNS September 11th. No doubt about it. September 11th means the WTC bombings of 2001. To dispute this would be irrational and illogical for the sake of winning an argument. It would be something you would never deny, except in this very thread.
Who should own the date of 9/11?
- Thread starter Neomega
- Start date
The United States OWNS September 11th. No doubt about it. September 11th means the WTC bombings of 2001. To dispute this would be irrational and illogical for the sake of winning an argument. It would be something you would never deny, except in this very thread.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
People in Chile probably don't care about the American 9/11.
From my experience when I was in Venezuela, most people find 9/11 to be no more relevant than the Madrid Train Bombings and they don't hold the date 9/11 to be special and noteworthy like we do in North America.
No, it isn't, and now you are being absurd. You know what I mean when I use the term "own". You know what I mean, and you know it is true.
"9/11" and "September 11th" == Sept 11, 2001, not Sept 11, 1973.
And the reason for this is because The American and it international/NATO media has hyped up one, and been silent on the other.
You are not even sure how Chile refers to the coup date, but you sure know how America refers to it.... ...but you are a Turk.
Proof again.
America owns September 11th.
I know the years, not the months/days.
Of course, if there were worldwide vigils, news specials, and victims families getting airtime on every anniversary date, like there is on September 11th for the WTC attacks, I would.
And although you are being sarcastic... ...you are also, still missing the point, that there is indeed a "conspiracy" as you called it, to put some events at the forefront of American, and indeed, world consciousness, while quietly ignoring others and hoping those heinous crimes are forgotten.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just natural that people will pay attention to this event which happened in their home country and that they can understand and not some events that happened a long time ago in countries they probably know nothing about.
Just because you didn't hear people talk about it on FOX or Oprah doesn't mean people are trying to silence it. You also overlook the fact that the news is a business. If people put up a remembrance program for the coup in Chile, how many people are going to watch it?
Do you really expect the President to have an annual address on past coups in other countries? Is there any country that does this?
Just because you didn't hear people talk about it on FOX or Oprah doesn't mean people are trying to silence it. You also overlook the fact that the news is a business. If people put up a remembrance program for the coup in Chile, how many people are going to watch it?
Do you really expect the President to have an annual address on past coups in other countries? Is there any country that does this?
I can think of a couple of countries that have committed atrocities that now pay homage to the victims of their atrocities.
Would I expect the United States to ever do such a thing? No.
Should they? Yes.
Chile should own 9/11. But I already made that clear in the first post.
And that's what is so offensive, that you can't let one tragedy exist with the other, you have to make an obnoxious contest out of it. Someone has to have ownership of it, like it's a song or something.
And I'm not aware of any country that pays homage to past atrocities in a comparable way with 9/11 memorials.
And I'm not aware of any country that pays homage to past atrocities in a comparable way with 9/11 memorials.
Oh... in Germany and Austria, somewhere around there, I hear there are quite a few, not small memorials to the victims of horrible national crimes.
Once again, the reality of who owns Sept 11 is FAR more offensive.
Why do either have to 'own' the date? Why can't we remember both? The attacks on the WTCs certainly has had more impact on my life (in the sense of being the most important event shaping the political context in which I live), so it's natural for me to automatically think of that rather than the Chilean coup, but that doesn't mean that I consider the date to be the exclusive property of one rather than the other, and it certainly doesn't mean I can't consider both as important. It's not a pissing contest. Similarly, I'm less likely to 'remember' the Chilean coup owing to the fact that I wasn't alive then, and so have no first hand memory of it.
A useful point, though different from the one that I think being made, is that western culture has kinda fetishised the phrase '9/11' and focuses on it far too much (and has focused on it in a way that has had a negative impact on policy), and that it shouldn't have been memorialised so much. But that horse has already bolted. Seems no point in complaining about it now except to the extent that it continues to be over-memorialised (and the lack of attention given to it this year suggests that this is lessening).
A useful point, though different from the one that I think being made, is that western culture has kinda fetishised the phrase '9/11' and focuses on it far too much (and has focused on it in a way that has had a negative impact on policy), and that it shouldn't have been memorialised so much. But that horse has already bolted. Seems no point in complaining about it now except to the extent that it continues to be over-memorialised (and the lack of attention given to it this year suggests that this is lessening).
If you're referring to the Holocaust, it's easy to understand how that would have a far greater impact on those nations' histories than a coup in another country.
The reality is that the two events on 9/11, other than sharing a day, have absolutely nothing to do with each other and it's absurd to try and compare them, not to mention offensive to both nations.
The idea of comparing them is not offensive to this Chilean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMFmKg0k8cY
Indeed, I am positive EVERY chilean, who lost a loved one or loved ones to Pinochet, and who now knows the US was behind the coup, is quite outraged about what September 11th has come to mean in the world's memory, while their own September 11th hells have been quietly forgotten, and the villains of their September 11th died with honors, or are still walking free and respected today, like Nobel Peace prize winner Kissinger.
Yes, to these Chileans, watching the Americans cry about their 3000 dead and calling for the heads of the villains of their september 11th, all the while giving peace prizes to villains of the 1973 September 11th... ...to these Chileans, I don't think they are offended at all that some guy on the internet is drawing a comparison and asking why America owns September 11th, when America was partially responsible for a September 11th that killed and tortured even more people.
No, you might be offended, and others might be offended, but those are just the offense of reading words. That's not as offensive as those who watch the murderers of their sons and daughters prance around and call themselves the leaders of the free world.
I know, right? But that's not the way it is. America owns September 11th. I say it's time the United States reflect upon what we did to Chile.
Perhaps my mind can be changed, and say it should be shared, but for now, America owes Chile an apology 39 years overdue, and it owes chile the heads of the American agents involved in such a heinous crime. Too bad most of them are dead by now.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
"international/NATO media" ? Really? I think it's far more likely a case of a media baron making a hell of a lot more money selling papers with stories about Muslims flying planes into buildings than South American coups. I doubt it's as conspiratorial as you have implied.
Yes, really. By international/NATO media, I mean the western media, (which is all publicly owned by international banks and financial firms, who own the majority of all shares of all major corporations in the western world).
Have you ever looked at the news in newspapers? What about the headlines on CNN or Yahoo?
They can fit in stories about:
Melanie Griffith's family wows at event
Accidental hit to the head saves man's life
etc, etc...
But never can find the time to print a story called, "the other 9/11"
And it's not just the media silence.... ....it is also the fact that there has never been international outrage about the American role in the coup as well. No charges were ever filed in the international courts... ...as a matter of fact, as I have posted numerous times already, the very Americans involved are celebrated as foreign policy gurus and unsung heros, blah blah blah.
Kill 3000 innocent Chileans, die a hero. Kill 3000 innocent Americans, public enemy number one.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Umm yeah, I've perused the odd paper in my time
But the above kind of illustrates my point. The reason trivialities like this take centre stage in the media as opposed to debates on the nuances of history is because it sells. It's not a conspiracy, it's the price that is paid for a relatively free press.To paraphrase some guy "nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the public"
Umm yeah, I've perused the odd paper in my time
To paraphrase some guy "nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the public"
And the network cable news stations lost 25% of their viewership last quarter alone.
And this is election season.
And the news can make a story out of anything they want to. They choose what is the news, and what is not the news, and they frame the news as they wish.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
So somehow media utilizes a completely different business model to all other successful enterprises which cater to the desires of the consumer?
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
Soviet media, which was sympathetic to Allende, not controlled by the international bankers, and not at all sympathetic to Pinochet, didn't refer to his coup as "9/11". It was "Pinochet's coup", "Reactionary military coup", "coup of 1973" etc.
USA didn't appropriate an already existing symbolic date, since even those who considered Pinochet's coup an important example of American imperialism, didn't make its exact date into a symbol.
In the USSR, if you had started to talk about "9/11" people wouldn't have understood what you were talking about, but they would immediately understand terms like "Pinochet's coup".
Therefore, the imperialist hegemonic powermongers of the US fetishized the date first and have all rights to keep their "9/11" trademark. I propose that sceptics of 9/11 fetishism refer to it as 9/11(c)(tm) from now on.
USA didn't appropriate an already existing symbolic date, since even those who considered Pinochet's coup an important example of American imperialism, didn't make its exact date into a symbol.
In the USSR, if you had started to talk about "9/11" people wouldn't have understood what you were talking about, but they would immediately understand terms like "Pinochet's coup".
Therefore, the imperialist hegemonic powermongers of the US fetishized the date first and have all rights to keep their "9/11" trademark. I propose that sceptics of 9/11 fetishism refer to it as 9/11(c)(tm) from now on.
