Which 11 September is more tragic?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Since the issue has been raised a couple times.

It's 1973, and this should be obvious to anyone who has an ounce of objectivity.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I've long since abandoned objectivity in favor of fervent jingoism. My life has been much happier.

[ZuWo]

I don't know. I find it pointless to compare the degree of tragedy of two such terrible moments/periods of time in human history.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Didn't vote.  I don't see the lives of those in one nation any more or less valuable than those of another nation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Didn't vote.  I don't see the lives of those in one nation any more or less valuable than those of another nation.

More lives were lost because of one of these events than the other, though. You can't say it doesn't make a difference.

[Del Tachi]

I've long since abandoned objectivity in favor of fervent jingoism. My life has been much happier.

9/11 was a much more tragic experience for me, so that simple fact means that it can be and is more tragic than the events in September 1973.

#win4postmodernism

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

2001. I am going to be 100% honest and say that 9/11 is a hundred more times more tragic to me, even if only a hundred people died instead of 3,000. Why? Because I am an American, and not a Chilean. Not saying that what happened in Chile was not awful, but I am frankly more concerned about Americans then people in other nations. Anyone who does not feel this way is lying to themselves.

Furthermore, going back to Snowstalkers earlier post, what is more annoying than the American “NEVER FORGET” and “EVERYTHING CHANGED” cries/dick waving is the left, particularly the Europeans on this forum,  who keep trying to compare this to the events in Chile. The events in Chile did not start a war in Afghanistan. The events in Chile did not lead to Muslim Americans being unfairly stigmatized for decades. The events in Chile did not lead to a shadowy Vice President launching a war for oil that further destabilized the Middle East.

I will never be able to fully comprehend what went down in Chile. I wasn’t there. The Chileans were. I cannot empathize with the victims of Pinochet’s torture chambers.  I cannot view the murder of Victor Jara like I do the murder of Barbara Olson or Todd Beamer. I cannot share in the joy of the citizens of Chile when Pinochet finally fell. But I can empathize with the families of the firefighters who died in the rubble of the World Trade Center. I can empathize with the people on those planes who died.

This thread is frankly disgusting. Nixon did something awful forty years ago. Nobody cares anymore. In forty years, nobody will care about 9/11. What is the POINT in comparing them? You know what the point of comparing them is? It’s a chance for some posters to bash America (and I am not the biggest Patriot in the world either-the US has done some horrible stuff) and dickwave in the same way they are condemning Americans for. It’s pointless, and it’s pathetic.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Nixon did something awful forty years ago. Nobody cares anymore. In forty years, nobody will care about 9/11.

Alright, come on.  Pearl Harbor happened over seventy years ago.  People still care about that.

Didn't vote.  I don't see the lives of those in one nation any more or less valuable than those of another nation.

More lives were lost because of one of these events than the other, though. You can't say it doesn't make a difference.

There may be a difference, but could you look in the eyes of a rape victim and tell her that what she went through wasn't that bad because only one guy raped her, and not many at the same time?  Yes, one event may have resulted in more deaths, but it's not fair to the 9/11 victims to place them second because of it.  Both events, in my opinion, deserve equal remembrance.  I agree that the US pays far too little attention to 1973.

[patrick1]

Didn't vote.  I don't see the lives of those in one nation any more or less valuable than those of another nation.

More lives were lost because of one of these events than the other, though. You can't say it doesn't make a difference.

That is wrong both on the actual date itself and in a death total if you extrapolate the effects of the aftermath.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Nixon did something awful forty years ago. Nobody cares anymore. In forty years, nobody will care about 9/11.

Alright, come on.  Pearl Harbor happened over seventy years ago.  People still care about that.

Yeah, the few survivors gather and a ceremony is held. But at this point, it is just a blip on the "this day in history" segment on the nightly news broadcasts.

[Still Nervous]

Didn't vote.  I don't see the lives of those in one nation any more or less valuable than those of another nation.

This, though 1973 resulted in a greater loss of life and is so horrifically ignored in the context of history (not a jingoistic hack)

[opebo]

Well, '73 was unmitigated.

[patrick1]

Didn't vote.  I don't see the lives of those in one nation any more or less valuable than those of another nation.

This, though 1973 resulted in a greater loss of life and is so horrifically ignored in the context of history (not a jingoistic hack)

Again, how is this true. I mean you are making hypothetical inferences on what would may have been but no 9/11/01 and there is no Iraq and Afghanistan. 01 had lasting global effects whereas Chile was more localized and had shorter implications.

Many of you are too young to remember but Bush ran on a non interventionism and no nation building stance His agenda was inward looking and domestic. He may have wanted to take out Saddam but would have had zero mandate were it not for 9/11.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, a common concern-of-sorts about the early Bush presidency (and the Bush campaign) in the media outside the U.S was that he might as well have not had a foreign policy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyway, the question is silly. They were both awful events. There's no need for a contest.

[© tweed]

I prefer my May 2012 incarnation of this question.  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=153431.0

[patrick1]

Yeah, a common concern-of-sorts about the early Bush presidency (and the Bush campaign) in the media outside the U.S was that he might as well have not had a foreign policy.

Yes, his general foreign policy stance was to pretend the rest of the world didn't exist. Throughout the campaign he was signalling a post WWI like disengagement. He really had no clue. SNL did some funny bits with him practicing foreign leaders names for the debates to prove his bona fides. His highlights in the run up to the election was to break out his elementary Spanish.

And equally I dislike these questions but they always come up. This just filler until the next who was worse Hitler or Stalin thread.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yeah, a common concern-of-sorts about the early Bush presidency (and the Bush campaign) in the media outside the U.S was that he might as well have not had a foreign policy.

It’s interesting you mention that. I was sick all day and stayed home, so I had time to watch a lot of TV. MSNBC aired the Today Show from 9/11/2001 in its entirety, showing the breaking news of the attacks and their live reports from the ground. One of their reporters (it may have been David Gregory, actually) brought up the Bush administrations lack of intervention in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian dialogues and how little Bush was involved in world affairs until that point.

It's rather ironic how seemingly withdrawn Bush on foreign affairs was until 9/11, as his administration is now remembered for the clusterf[inks]k that is Iraq and the economic collapse. Of course, Iraq was unavoidable with or without 9/11, so he likely would have been remembered for his foreign policy in the end anyway.

[Rooney]

2001. That was the day when Kwame Kilpatrick won first place in the Detroit Mayoral primary. Detroit has never recovered.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, his general foreign policy stance was to pretend the rest of the world didn't exist. Throughout the campaign he was signalling a post WWI like disengagement. He really had no clue. SNL did some funny bits with him practicing foreign leaders names for the debates to prove his bona fides. His highlights in the run up to the election was to break out his elementary Spanish.

Reminds me:

'I can name the General'

'The General' being Pervez Musharraf.

[patrick1]

One thing that strikes me while pondering these events is the incredible resilience of people to overcome tragedy and work together. I visited Chile not too long after the earthquake/Tsunami. I heard first hand stories about people coming together to rebuild and recovery from those events.  As New Yorkers we shared some of our lessons learned from 9/11. Chile, despite a painful past and burgeoning protests about their educational system, struck me as a really vibrant country with a bright future.

Everyday I can see a rebuilt World Trade Center out of my window while we work to recover from Hurricane Sandy. I can walk up the block and share the subway with people from all corners of the earth. All going about their day whether they be wearing hijabs, hipster or day laborer attire. This all happens with a relative calm and order that I would not have dreamed possible even 12 years ago.

[Kitteh]

1973 was reflective of a much bigger problem than 2001 was.

[Paul Kemp]

Yeah, a common concern-of-sorts about the early Bush presidency (and the Bush campaign) in the media outside the U.S was that he might as well have not had a foreign policy.

It’s interesting you mention that. I was sick all day and stayed home, so I had time to watch a lot of TV. MSNBC aired the Today Show from 9/11/2001 in its entirety, showing the breaking news of the attacks and their live reports from the ground. One of their reporters (it may have been David Gregory, actually) brought up the Bush administrations lack of intervention in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian dialogues and how little Bush was involved in world affairs until that point.

You were 5.

[Oakvale]

Didn't vote.  I don't see the lives of those in one nation any more or less valuable than those of another nation.

More lives were lost because of one of these events than the other, though. You can't say it doesn't make a difference.

This is true but not in the way you seem to think it is.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yeah, a common concern-of-sorts about the early Bush presidency (and the Bush campaign) in the media outside the U.S was that he might as well have not had a foreign policy.

It’s interesting you mention that. I was sick all day and stayed home, so I had time to watch a lot of TV. MSNBC aired the Today Show from 9/11/2001 in its entirety, showing the breaking news of the attacks and their live reports from the ground. One of their reporters (it may have been David Gregory, actually) brought up the Bush administrations lack of intervention in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian dialogues and how little Bush was involved in world affairs until that point.

You were 5.

I'm talking about today. Hence why the Today Show was being reaired on MSNBC instead of being live on NBC.