[QUOTE="raven_squad"][QUOTE="Ontain"] Oklahoma City was terrible but only killed 168. if it weren't for the 9/11 attacks it might still be remembered more. but it was totally overshadowed now by 9/11. another reason is because 9/11 wasn't just 1 building. it was a coordinated attack at multiple places and on civilian targets as well rather than a federal building. and many ppl do remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki but that was during war. But rest assured that the Japanese still remember it. just like we still remember Pearl Harbor. jetpower3
It was "only" 168 people? So... because 9/11 resulted in more death its more important? I'm sure the families of the victims feel the same way... And in all honesty, the attacks on Japan were atrocious. Time of war, sure, but we crossed a ridiculous line that day, and it's one of the most disgusting things I can think of. Pearl Harbor was an attack on military targets, ours was an attack to strike fear into people and devastate them. My point is really, war, terrorism, massive attacks and bombings etc are not something new, if I mourned them all I would never quit mourning. And just because this one effected America, it's not any more important. If I'm the only one that feels that way, so be it. About Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It might be debatable, but there's some strong evidence that Operation Downfall (the operation to invade Japan) would have killed or maimed millions of people. It was a terrible tragedy, but could you imagine the other outcome? The U.S. and its allies might never have even won the War in the Pacific without very great causalties.
But as for the Oklahoma City Bombing, the number dead surely has a hand in whether we remember it or no (we cannot hold a tribute or rememberance for every single person who dies violently in the world for instance), and that is often one of the main ways how we measure tragedy, but I agree in the regard that it is still significant enough to be remembered. Unfortunately, people only remember what is convenient and been drilled into their mind over and over again, and Oklahoma City has not been emphasized for years. People only remember what is convenient much of the time. They are just too busy to remember every major tragedy in the world. Do people dedicate the beginning of the Easter Offensive in 1972 where over 75,000 Vietnamese (including 25,000 civilians) died in 7 months? No, because few Americans were dying by then. Do people dedicate the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, where the most American servicemen died in one day since the Tet Offensive? No, I don't think so. Will the people in the U.S. dedicate the most recent major Baghdad bombing in August of this year which killed about 100 people 8 years from now? Or the one in 2005 in Iraq that killed over 700 people? Will people remember the Indian Ocean 2004 Tsunami that killed at least 230,000 people? No, because like I said, people in general only remember people of their own nationality and then some of their allies when defining "tragedy", and then everyone else in war is just collateral damage, and in peace time, a temporary and interesting news story.
That's my two cents.
yes Mccarthur picked the lesser oftoo evils, its was a few hundred thousand or japan pretty muc hwiped off the map and 3million+ US soldiers.
and you nailed it it is said that people don't care about much much worse things becuase of where it happens. you give great examples but you forgot two that dwarf both. Rawanda and Darfur. About a million dead for both, millions more are displaced. nothing was done for these poor, trulely defenseless people. all because they are african and have no valued natural resources.
Log in to comment