Treefingers said:
Cyrax987 said:
Cheshire the Cat said:
NZ. Not cared about in the slightest. In fact[footnote]Though to be fair this is just from people I have spoken to about it.[/footnote] people find it distasteful that americans still go on and on about it like it was such a big thing. And the whole "They attacked us!" is disgusting.
Simple fact is this, unless you actually lost a family member in the attack then you really need to stfu about it and stop acting as if it had anything to do with you.
Oh and internationally its viewed 11/9. <.<
So because people don't know any of the 3000+ people killed, they shouldn't care and feel bad for those that lost their lives? I find it pretty distasteful that you don't think it wasn't a big deal considering it was a LOT of civilian deaths. Not trying to give you "This is 'Merica!" speech but seriously dude.
A lot of people were affected by it in a lot of emotional ways regardless of knowing any of the victims just like how Pearl Harbor affected the people that were alive when that happened. I'm sure other people feel the same for tragic attacks in their country as well.
On the topic of civilian deaths, this is how it's remembered by plenty of people i know:
Sad for the innocent lives lost... but there's also a lot of fucked up controversy that it comes with.
Many statistics that come up with these numbers, however, do not take into account two things: One, they do not seperate civilian casualities caused by coalition forces and insurgents.
Two: They do not compare or contrast the number of deaths under previous regimes (think millions), the estimated deaths had these regimes stayed in power (think, about the same as if not more than that bar), and the economic boom that has followed since the US invasion (hint: Iraq is quickly becoming a center for economic power in the middle east, already about twice as rich as it was under Saddam, and the same goes for Afghanistan).)
So to me, these statistics are a moot point.