The original title of this thread was going to be: "Was 9/11 really that bad?" but I didn't want any immediate anger going in to member's comments. The real debate here is: Was 9/11 as disastrous as people think? Oh and I apologise for two debates in two days but I've posted this one before on another forum so I wanted to sample some Forgehubbians opinions on the matter. To start, here are some statistics: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9/11 incident: 6000+ injured, and 2973 deaths. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hiroshima Bombing: 220,000+ deaths, an estimated 3000 more from cancer caused by radiation. The Holocaust: 11-17 million deaths. Slaughter of the Armenians: 1-1.5 million deaths. Chernobyl Disaster: 56 direct deaths, an estimated 100,000 more from cancers caused by radiation poisoning. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I understand that the statistics above are purely based on death counts, but the point I'm trying to make is that a lot of people have started to overlook how disastrous some other events in history have been. These days most people won't have even heard of the slaughter of the Armenians, but the slaughter accounts for 1-1.5 million deaths. That's approximately 500 times the amount of deaths caused by the 9/11 hijackings. I hope I haven't offended anyone by posting this. Anyway what's you're take on the subject?
People (especially the goddamned media) tend to blow things WAYYYY out of proportion...especially those things that tend to matter the least. People made a big deal out of how Obama killed a fly during a press conference but nobody seems to care about world poverty and murder and genocide. I have so much hate to express towards the inadequacy of society but so little time or will to express it.
Well, some of those examples are from different types of scenarios. Some cased by war, some by accident, some by genocide. What I mean is most are not a deliberate, random acts like 911 was. 911 was bad enough to make us go over there and fight them back. Hitler and the **** party got what they deserved for what they did. The Japanese didn't want to back down so they got the bomb. I don't really think the amount of people who died on 911 is really relevant to the argument. It was a direct attack on our country so it was as epic of an event to spark another war. The time frame of the events are really what makes one seem to stand out from another. That and the proximity of the events to where most of us live. I am not offended by the thread. All these topics are taught in school.
I think you're right about the coverage...I'm not trying to say that 9/11 "really wasn't that bad", it was horrible, but you just can't compare it to some of this stuff. As the one I know best personally, the Holocaust (having a grandmother who went through it - the rest of her family didn't - and been to numerous museums and such), it's hard to even come close to comparing. I think what makes a difference in this is the coverage...I've been extremely surprised as to how little most people know about the tragedies in history. Most people will know practically nothing about any given one of these, EXCEPT 9/11, because of the media. It's sad.... Edit: Also, 9/11 is the only one that was in our time. I'm interested now to ask someone who was a kid when any of this stuff happened how much they were bombarded with info compared to us.
Tragedies are not felt by death counts. The expectancy, closeness to home, relevance within a time period, etc. are all factors that account for why a specific tragedy feels the way it does. 9/11 feels incredibly horrendous for Americans and New Yorkers especially but I would expect very few of those people would honor the Spanish subway bombing and the 7/7/2005 attacks (which coincidentally I had to google because it had little relevance to me). All deaths, no matter the death toll, are a remarkable reminder of how fragile life is and how we must protect it from those who wish to rob the spark of the divine from this world. 9/11 was awful because for me, personally, it was unexpected and created a sense that America wasn't an untouchable bastion for the world to hide it valuables. We escaped WWII with one civilian casuality, yet a few people in a god forsaken world can kill 3,000 in a day? 9/11 isn't about fear mongering if that's the picture I've mistakenly painted for you but the revelation of truth that we must be vigilant. And that's why 9/11 really was as disastrous as people think. P.S. - The holocaust was not as bad as 9/11 in the eyes of someone who experienced the catastrophe. Likewise the African genocide's aren't as bad as the Holocaust because people subjectively place specific importance upon each tragedy. No tragedy is greater than another and to think so is an arrogance that I can't even begin to curse. Those who would think that their tragedy is worse therefore it is sad people don't honor the way they do need to learn respect for others. You would not feel the same heart ache as a person who was directly affected, why should they feel the same way for you?
At the moment staying neutral, but you might want to look up the count of Civilian deaths in Iraq as a result of western occupation post 9/11. I believe the count was 300,000 dead. If you are naive and deprived of all senses to the point where you believe that the Iraq War was a result of 9/11, then why don't you stop and think, is it just that those 300,000 people have died because 3000 died at 9/11? Also you could look up the tsunami in 2004, incidents of genocide in much of Afica including Zimbabwe, Somalia etc.
I think that 9/11 gets more coverage because it was one of the first disasters/major act of terrorism in the U.S, and you are basing your opinion solely on U.S coverage through the media. Also, people think and also I agree that since it is a more recent topic that more people care due to a different generation dealing with it that probably wasn't even alive in the 1940's for WWII. I'm just saying that basically those that you mentioned are all old topics that we have discussed and debated the hell out of while 9/11 still maybe has somethings to be discussed. And although you think that more attention was paid to 9/11, think about all of the movies dedicated to WWII events and tragedies when 9/11 has about 3 films.
I disagree because although 9/11 was a random act of terrorism, you can't ignore the amount of innocent people who died in Hiroshima, who had nothing to do with Japan's decisions regarding the war. I see where you're coming from though with things like Madeline Mccann, who was abducted and recieved so much media coverage it's unreal. It's true. I live nowhere near any of the places in which these disasters occurred so if someone asked me: "If you could go back in time and stop either 9/11 or the Holocaust from happening, which would you pick?" I'd pick the Holocaust purely based on the amount of deaths. Another thing is I think the collapse of the World Trade Centre itself caused serious anger, as Americans are definately more patriotic than other countries.
9/11 was one of the hardest days of my life, and I was only in third grade. There was an announcement in our school that our parents were coming to get us and a tragedy had occurred and no one really knew what was going on not just because we were too young to really understand, but because of the chaos in the school. My dad has worked in New York City all of his life and that day was no different. He did survive though and got home safely. My uncle did die that day though as he worked in one of the buildings that was hit. So I feel that 9/11 will always make an impact on people like me who have lost of nearly lost someone to the act of terrorism. To this day I still give a moment of silence for that day when it comes around. However, this does not mean I don't believe that Holocaust has had a bigger impact on the lives of people worldwide, it's just I didn't experience it and my generation had to experience and deal with the fears of terrorists at a very young age.
9/11 is just like pearl harbor but instead of a surprise attack on a military target such as Battle Ship Cove it was in the middle of the greatest city in modern time and it was aimed at civilian targets. approximately 3,000 died at pearl harbor and almost 3,000 died at 9/11. Any time we have been surprised attacked by a foriegn power we have declared war and have cause the enemy far more damage at the end of the day. In World War II we dropped the atom bomb ,and in the middle east we have amounted tons of civilian casualties because we dont know who our enemies are since they look just like any other person. They wear no uniform and thats why there are so many civilain casualties. This happened in Viet Nam this happened and this would have happened at the end of world war II since every able bodied Jappaneese person was willing to fight to the death [man woman,and child]. We have caused many civilain deaths but we have cut the numbers down from what they could have been if we just declared total war and annilated our enemies. 9/11 is not as bad as some military atrrocities over time but it is one of the most deadly and unprovoked attacks against civilain life in modern time. We were hit hard but we will always hit harder as shown by the statistics. Our country has never failed militarily even in vietnam our statistics in battle were great but we lost the war at home just like we are today with the war in the middle east.[The media has lost us wars] In all 9/11 was a serious attack and we responded its not the worst attack of all time but the worse in modern time especialy since it was unprovoked. The list of accidents,war crimes ,and attrocities should not be compared to an attack in peace time. There is a difference between civilains died in a war time and them dieing in a time of peace. 9/11 incident: Was a unprovoked attack in times of peace against civilians. Hiroshima Bombing: Was a military solution to end a war that would have killed many more civilains than if we hadn't dropped the bomb. They started the war we ended it. Every civilian was willing to die to protect their land. If we invaded we would have had to kill everyone to end the war thats how messed up it was. Their essentialy was no innocents or civilians in Japan at that time. The bomb turned the people against the emperor and forced him to surrender so that they would not all need to perish. The Holocaust: Is a war crime done in a time of War. Slaughter of the Armenians: This can be up for debate whether its comparable or not its rellivant but not in modern times. It happened directly after World War I because of the war. This happened in 1915 as a result of the war and even if its considered genocide I wouldnt say its comparable to 9/11. Its not a surprise attack but a war crime in my opinion. Chernobyl Disaster: This was a disaster done to Russia by themselves its not an attack or a crime carried out by a seppertate group in times of peace. It was a disaster caused by poor matinance in a nuclear plant which led to a malfunction and to a disaster which affected many people. Its Russias fault for the accident and theres alone. Blame the soviet Union for the problem they brought appon their own people. Pearl Harbor: Was considered unprovoked but it kinda was but it was an attack on military targets not civilain. Natural Disasters: These are mostly unpredictable and are no ones fault. You can't compare an act of violence to and act of nature. Unless the response to help the victums is late like in Katrina then its someones fault.
The emperor was their god and he commanded the to all fight to the death each and every person and they all were, and that soon changed when they realised that we were willing to annilate them. We dropped the bomb and a city was gone they thought we were just playing around then we dropped the second one and they realized we had just destroyed two cities with little effort and could do the same to the capitol next.[Tokyo] We saved countless lives by showing the people of Japan brute strength and that we were willing to take them on. Countless lives would have been lost in invadeing all of Japan its was their final stand point and were ready to die fighting.
Well that might be true for some of them (probably a very small minority), but most of them will have not cared and only wanted to avoid war. For another thing I don't get any of this "die for you're Country" talk, because if you die it doesn't benefit you're country at all, it only hinders it.
Well the dieing for the emperor wasnt my idea but thats what they thought. Kamakazi soldiers died bysacrificing their lives and thatsd what would have happened but on a full scale if we invaded Japan. They would have stoped at nothing to protect their country. It was their mentality they would die for their cause which was protect the homeland.
9/11 affected many americans because of how some family members may have died. Also 9/11 was one of the few terroist attacks on American soil. This may have been a very sad day but it made the government take action and make flying more safe. Though nobody saw this coming everybody including the media may have different stories on what happened and why it happened. As for the natural disasters thats just mother nature just refreshing the land. :]
To the hijackers onboard the aircraft, who were probably brainwashed anyway, this to them was a religous war, and a suprise attack. The last time America formally declared war was in 1942, so if i rationalize then all of the wars since were undeclared attacks. Korea, Veitnam, the Gulf, etc could all be interpreted to the other side as suprise attacks. To clarify, the hijackers believed this is a war. You call it terrorism. I have no idea where you gained the conclusion that 9/11 made flights more safe. If you are suggesting you feel more safe now that you are aware, then you are both stupid for not understanding the world around you prior, and also for still being unaware of many other airline ploys to keep you in a feeling of security. Lastly, i find your comment on natural disasters to be sickening. How you can attatch yourself to people at 9/11 that you would have never known, or never have cared about had the attack not took place, but then you so elequently disattach yourself from any responsibility of the world around you. Type in 2001 into google (if you don't know what happened in this year then leave now) and see if you find a familiar link. Now type in 2004, and look at how the tsunami appears as the first link. This is how the rest of the world behave.
The Japanese Fighting man - World War II Zone Forums It was the general mentality of the Japaneese people there was no retreat or surrender. As in all the battles before if the Jappaneese were going to lose the battle they would either fight to the last man or commit suicide. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_drop_the_atomic_bombs_on_Japan No surrender men fighting years after war had ended. http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/ Read "total sacrifice" and kamakazi sections. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/japan_no_surrender_01.shtml Kamakazi http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/kamikaze/films/documentaries/nosurrender/index.htm Kamakazis considered "brave " http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/kamikaze/japanese/index.htm General strategy of Japaneese army during World War II and in depth battle and positions. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/AMH/AMH-23.html Basically they had a no surrender idea and we had to force them too or else we would have had to loose many men fighting them in a final stand. It would have been a blood bath if we landed and even as bad as the atom bombs were they saved lives. How do you stop an enemy that does not fear death and will fight to the end, you show them that we can anilate them with out loosing a man and that all their efforts are for nothing. We dropped the bombs and that showed them we had the power and they had to surrender or be wiped out. It sucks that we had to reach that point but they were like no other enemy we had faced up to then and extreeme measures were needed to end the war. The atomic bombs dropping ended a war but started anouther. [cold war] So this event is similar to 9/11 but not so similar because it was not deliberately used to start a war or to target and kill "innocent" people even though it did. 9/11 was a surprised unprovoked terrorist attack. The atom bombs being dropped was a last resort solution to save lives not cause more death.
Honestly, what is there to debate? People died, of course that is serious, on any level. You can't say killing one person is just as justified as killing a gross amount of people. There are no sources to source, for this is not a debate but more of a discussion on the killing of innocent people. Comparing it to another tragic event can only be done to the extent by saying people died from it. Different motives, different scenario, different places, different circumstances. The better debate would be, is it a conspiracy? Debatable. Or, is it the result of the War? And if so, to what extent? Again, debatable. There is no debate on the seriousness of a massacre. Sure, less lives might have been taken than Chernobyl or Hurricane Katrina but who is to say no course of action should have been taken. That's unrealistic.