The difference between the British reaction and our own is

[cornermouse]

striking. It really is.

A few hours later, they're back to life as usual. We weren't. In fact, we still aren't. And unlike us, I don't believe that they will give up any of their constitutional rights in an attempt to feel safe.

[fooj]

1. I noticed that early this morning. It certainly is a stark contrast!

peace.

[unblock]

2. new yorkers were back in action fairly quickly

despite the hole that remains at ground zero, for the most part, people went right back to work.

the difference is not the people so much as their so-called leaders. shrub and the gang had an agenda were eager to milk the tragedy for all they could, and have created a toxic, self-serving political environment.

no genuine leader would ever consider such a thing.

[TheGoodCitizen]

3. Agree...

I watched some footage of people just going about their business as normal, as the reporter put it.

Then you turn to Fox "news" and they tell you how the British are not leaving their homes and "they are being lead by fear" or something to that effect, blah blah blah!

We'll be more fearful by the end of the week than the British are now... Rush Limpball SUCKS! Be Afraid, Be VERY Afraid!

[Wetzelbill]

4. they have had to deal with the IRA and other attacks

The city of London was leveled by Hitler in WW2 and they just kept fighting their asses off until eventually the Allies won. In the U.S. we haven't had a major ttack on our soil ever. Pearl Harbor was in Hawaii and not the mainland. OK City was a domestic terror action and not a foreign one. So we haven't had bloody conflict on our soil since the Civil War, and none of us remember that. 9/11 was completely new and foreign to us, that's what made it so shocking. When a bomb goes off in Tel Aviv, for example, they are all cleaned up and functioning along that same street before the end of the business day. We aren't resilient in that manner, because we haven't had to be. I hope we never do have to become that resilient. At least in that manner. Getting used to daily attacks in the U.S. would be awful. It'd be a tragedy if it came to that.

[unblock]

5. well, technically, the british did burn down the white house

but that was nearly two centuries ago....

and of course there was the civil war, though you might exclude that since it wasn't "foreign" (though southerners might argue that point).

[cornermouse]

6. To all of the above.

I was told yesterday that we're just waiting for the next attack here and I thought "We are?" Not that I doubt that they're being planned. I just don't see any point in spending time waiting for it.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

8. Yeah-- long experience

Continental Europe has had to deal with constant wars over the last millennium and so, even in the midst of the brutality of the world wars, Continental Europe's capitals just went right on humming. This is one of the reasons why the Dresden attack, for example, was so totally unsuccessful in 1945.

Britain, with the English Channel providing protection, has generally had much less warfare and fewer invasion worries than the Continent but hasn't been spared either. Western Britain was successfully invaded by the Spaniards in 1595 (who basically left on their own after burning down some villages and seizing supplies), and the Dutch invaded Britain in 1667 up the Medway after winning a naval battle. Plus there were the Zeppelin bombings in WWI and the continuous blitzing and V-2/V-1 attacks against London in WWII. So Britain's been hit hard before and is accustomed-- as much as one can be-- to foreign attacks on its own soil. Plus the IRA attacks were especially terrifying through the 1970s and 1980s, killing hundreds of soldiers and civilians and imposing a constant pall of dread and uncertainty.

The USA in contrast, in no small part due to our own geographic protection, has been able to "remain a child" on the international scene for much longer, in the sense of retaining our innocence from the fear of foreign invasion that other countries have had to regularly fear. Thus the 9/11 attacks proved to be especially shocking to us-- although, admittedly, never before in history had any small group of warriors perpetrated anything remotely on that scale.

[Wetzelbill]

9. jeezus, thanks Professor....

B-)

[tenshi816]

14. Exactly - 9/11 was all the more shocking because

America had never been attacked on its own home turf and it made people feel all the more vulnerable.

Because I've lived in the UK for so many years, I've adopted the British attitude about such things. Life goes on. Yesterday I was teary all day; today I'm angry, but nothing else has changed in the way I go about my life.

During the bad IRA years over here, I was evacuated several times from trains and train stations because of bomb threats. After a while, I stopped being frightened and began to be annoyed at the inconvenience (stupid, I know, but after it happened the first half dozen times, it's just the way I started to feel). It didn't mean that I didn't look for suspect packages in public places (I still do, BTW), but it did mean that I stopped worrying all the time about terrorists. If people let it, fear will take over their lives.

[deutsey]

29. It was also far more devestating in its catastrophic spectacle

It didn't just stun Americans, I think the collapse of the WTC, with its apocalyptic imagery and deadly savagery, shocked most of the world.

That said, I am very impressed with the openness and frankness of the London police commissioner and the way he's emphasized that communities defeat terrorism, not the police.

Here in America, we were encouraged to go shopping when we weren't being scared into wrapping ourselves in duct tape and seclusion. Oh, and we had to give up our liberties in order to defend our freedom.

[demnan]

7. Well the scope of the attacks was different

also we in the States suffer a level of shock when our space is violated, that comes from geography, more than anything else. We were right back at work the next day, driving by a smoking Pentagon. I don't think our level of resilence is any less.

[TomClash]

10. The reaction of most New Yorkers

was pretty much the same as the reaction of most Londoners. Not exactly a striking difference there.

[bklyncowgirl]

11. Absolutely. Give New Yorkers credit, please.

My husband works a few blocks from the Trade Center. Within a few days, despite the horrible deaths of thousands nearby and questions of public health that have still not been resolved, people were back to work as soon as services were restored.

Sometimes it seems to me that the people who were most traumatized by 9/11 were those who had the least connection to it.

[Wetzelbill]

13. hey we all know NYers can handle their shit

you get mad props here. That goes without saying.

[tedoll78]

22. Bingo.

Sometimes it seems to me that the people who were most traumatized by 9/11 were those who had the least connection to it.

Look at that Red/Blue county-by-county map. The areas whose necks aren't really on the terror attack chopping block are the ones who voted on fear; those who actually live under the threat are the ones voted on hope/intellect. It's quite a nice endorsement of the Democratic party from those voters, if you think about it..

[CarolNYC]

24. Giving NYers credit

I heard a Brit this morning in a radio interview doing just that. When asked about the stoicism of the Brits in response to the attacks, he said "Well, New York led the way with the reaction to 9/11 but we are a plucky bunch." I thought that was nice.

I agree about the people most traumatized and that it was our nation's leaders and many who weren't even affected by the attack who acted badly. I don't think you'd get a lot of folks in NY who agree with most of what's been done "in our name" since 9/11.

As I recall, the overwhelming emotion in the city those days was not panic or anger or lust for revenge but sadness...as a columnist noted it was a whole city full of people only one or two persons removed from someone who died....and all of those missing flyers....just heartbreaking.

In any event, by heart goes out to all those Londoners living through this horrendousness.

[satya]

12. The difference is that the UK is conducting a criminal investigation

and fully intend to solve the crime and prosecute the perpetrators.

The US destroyed evidence. To this day, no indictments have been brought against Osama bin-Laden for the 9-11 attacks. Many USAmericans accept, without question, the "official" story, in spite of the many gaping holes in that conspiracy theory.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. They'll never bring charges against Osama.

It would go against their assertion that it was an act of war, rather than a crime. The only people who've been brought up on charges are people who were already in the US at the time.

[TriMetFan]

15. There is a difference between

England & U.S. =The News Media + NeoNazi Republicans= Fear. They put the Fear of Death into the people of this Nation.

[Modem Butterfly]

16. Well the Brits had their own version of the Patriot Act during the 70's...

...when things were really hot with the IRA.

[WLKjr]

17. but you forgot....

9/11 changed everything...


</sarcasm>


now time to go invest in stocks :puke:

Fuck Brit Hume and Fox News!

[T_i_B]

18. There is still the ID card issue

which many UK DUer's are very worried about. And that has very big civil liberties issues surrounding it. Some UK DUer's are worried about that issue more than anything else relating to this blast, worried that this will allow ID cards to become law a lot faster then they would have previously.

[GeekMonkey]

19. Fear sells

[CJCRANE]

20. That's because 9/11 was needed

to gain the political capital to start a war and further a pre-planned agenda. Plus the anthrax attacks kept everyone in a state of fear and paranoia for a lot longer than the 9/11 attacks would have done on their own.

[LaurenG]

21. We may have fared better if the strikes weren't from

our own Planes. NY city was devestated. Clean-up took forever and the entire skyline changed. Bless our stout hearted cousins. They can roll with the punches.

[Justice]

25. It is not fair or right to compare the tragedies,

and therefore the response. 911 was dramatically different - planes, skyscrapers falling, 3000 killed.

[ICantBelieve]

28. I agree

They are completely different.

However, it's fair to compare the the Brits reaction to this with the way we would have reacted to it. And I think that difference is striking.

[Ganja Ninja]

26. I doubt they'll spend the next 3 years moaning about ...

their victim-hood on June 7th 2005. We just wallowed in self pity after 9/11 and some of us still can't get past it.

[KittyWampus]

27. Britain Has ALREADY Given Up Many Liberties.