Because it's pretty obvious that it is, but I've STILL seen people acting like it isn't.

9/6/2005 1:39:17 PM

katrina is like 9/11 happening to every sky scraper in new orleans

9/6/2005 1:40:00 PM

where have you heard someone it isnt? ive never heard anyone try to make 9/11 out to be worse, in terms of human impact in the US that is...

9/6/2005 1:40:41 PM

apples and oranges

9/6/2005 1:42:04 PM

yeah I would never say 9/11 was worse then katrina on human life, but 9/11 shocked us more, since Katrina was a natural disaster people don't view it in the same light.

9/6/2005 1:47:05 PM

i dont know about that... im pretty sure that a direct result of 9/11 more people have died, but only that its not been in the US... its been world wide.

9/6/2005 1:50:53 PM

It's hard to use hurricanes for political gain, though.

9/6/2005 1:52:49 PM

Quote :

"It's hard to use hurricanes for political gain, though."

Wrong answer. It'll simply be the Democrats exploiting it for political gain instead.

9/6/2005 1:54:49 PM

More like,

CORRECT ANSWER

9/6/2005 1:57:04 PM

^^ aye

[Edited on September 6, 2005 at 1:57 PM. Reason : s]

9/6/2005 1:57:25 PM

Oh please.

Only the loonies are blaming Bush for inadequate infrastructure.

As far as the response goes, who here thinks Bush did an adequate job?


On the other hand, Clinton continues to be blamed for 9/11, terrorism is continually being linked to just about every one of Bush's pet projects, and many mainstream Republicans continue to say that the Dems are soft on terror.

9/6/2005 2:03:21 PM

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=346241

9/6/2005 2:10:05 PM

yeah I don't see anyone who isn't a retard directly blaming republicans for the disaster. It was bureaucracy and arrogance that kept the funding away from making the levees and the area able to withstand that damage, not politics.

It just so happened that it was republicans in the white house and congress this time. I'd bet a democrat government would probably suck just as bad.

9/6/2005 2:13:43 PM

I'm pretty sure that this thread was a stab at humor, but I will respond as if it isn't:

To say one is worse than the other, you have to decide what aspects are more important.

I would say that the implications of a highly planned out terrorist attack are worse than those of a natural disaster. I believe that the attacks of 9/11/01 have and will shape our nation and the world much more than hurricain Katrina. Now whether you think the way 9/11 shaped things leaves us better or worse is another matter.

9/6/2005 3:15:12 PM

Quote :

"apples and oranges "

agreed.

on 9/11 someone attacked us.

this was a natural disaster.

both are horrible, but very different.

9/6/2005 3:47:25 PM

cue the WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON AUGUST 29, 2005 thread

9/6/2005 4:00:20 PM

8 years to the day after Judgement Day was supposed to happen.

9/6/2005 4:02:44 PM

Quote :

"does anyone not think katrina is worse than 9/11?"

ITS NOT IF YOU DIE
ITS NOT, HOW MANY DIE



ITS: HOW. YOU. DIE.

9/6/2005 4:08:43 PM

well so far katrina isn't anywhere near as funny

9/6/2005 4:27:13 PM

with all that looting stuff, and the footage of the guy asking the cop why she is looting, i dont know

9/6/2005 4:33:48 PM

If you told the occupants of the WTC, employees at the Pentagon and people who purchased the tickets for the 4 flights that a really bad event was going to occur that could mean the destruction of said properties and loss of life something tells me they might have listened.

9/11 is worse because of the cause. Fetuses abort naturally with some regularity, but if you punch a woman in the stomach and it happens then you are fucked.

On a similar note, over the course of one year there are ten times as many people fatally shot in California than American soldiers have died since the start of conflict in Iraq. Its all about perspective.

9/6/2005 5:00:15 PM

20000 gun murders in california in one year?

come on buddy

9/6/2005 5:01:52 PM

AMURICANS

not total

9/6/2005 5:10:55 PM

Yeah, I remembered that one wrong (came up in a thread on here awhile back).

It was 10 times as many homicides over a year in the US than deaths of American soldiers in the entire Iraq war/conflict. This was when the total was just under 1,800 (homicides in 2002: 17,638).

My bad.



[Edited on September 6, 2005 at 5:14 PM. Reason : Either way, more people murdered in Cali than we have lost in Iraq.... perspective.]

9/6/2005 5:11:43 PM

and also that really doesn't mean shit


[Edited on September 6, 2005 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2005 5:14:04 PM

Quote :

"and also that really doesn't mean shit"

Its relevant to the discussion. Its all about what people perceive as "acceptable" deaths relative to social norms. The soldiers dying in Iraq are not a normal occurence so it draws so much attention and feels much worse (because it was a decision/politics/avoidability). Its sort of like the way people freak out over dying in a plain crash but don't really think twice about the significantly higher rate of automobile deaths... Its not always the pure numbers that determine importance/impact.

9/6/2005 5:21:00 PM

you are missing an important part of why its different

"per capita"

9/6/2005 5:25:27 PM

Quote :

"On the other hand, Clinton continues to be blamed for 9/11, terrorism is continually being linked to just about every one of Bush's pet projects, and many mainstream Republicans continue to say that the Dems are soft on terror. "

amen, it's sickening

9/6/2005 5:32:45 PM

Quote :

"you are missing an important part of why its different "per capita""

Of course the rates are going to be different. Considered one is the rate for day to day living and one is for a hot combat zone that a difference in rates would be understood. Also, going by rates, planes are safer than cars yet a fear of flying is far more prevalent.

9/6/2005 5:58:33 PM

Katrina had more of a direct impact on the average American through higher gas prices than 9/11 did.

9/7/2005 12:06:09 AM

I'd say seeing the actual event that killed a few thousand people within a couple minutes probably had a more lasting effect than the south having high gas prices for a little while. Seeing the planes hit and the buildings collapse was just more in your face. The hurricane and flooding was somewhat anticpated and took a few days for the results to come about... gonna be easier to take in stride. I know when I watched the 9/11 broadcast I was sick to my stomach... just went outside and chainsmoked with a friend, unable to speak.

9/7/2005 1:45:23 AM

the effect on airlines hit most. we all have a fear because of 9/11. changed the whole world. but the disaster itself and the physical destruction was much worse in katrina. not to downtone the lives of the people lost but 9/11 was more of a political and mental disaster than anything.

i also dont know why abc nbc cbs didnt go wall to wall on katrina. it was big news.

[Edited on September 7, 2005 at 3:59 AM. Reason : j]

9/7/2005 3:58:40 AM

Quote :

"i also dont know why abc nbc cbs didnt go wall to wall on katrina. it was big news."

I think it was simply because it took so long for it to get as bad as it is. I mean New Orleans and the surounding area were initially reported to be OK after the storm. It looked as though it would just be another bad Hurricane like Andrew, Hugo, etc. If I remember correctly the levees didn't break until more than 24 hours after the storm hit land and even then it took awhile to realize just how bad the subsequent flooding was. Then of course the aftermath stories had to start emerging of bandits, looters, tens of thousands of people who stayed behind in the flood areas, etc. When a stroy takes days to develop it just won't have the same impact as seeing two of the largest buildings in the worldturn to dust when you know its got thousands of people in it.

9/7/2005 8:50:29 AM

Emotionally, sure 9/11 was worse.
Of course, 9/11 still wins if you exclude emotions, airline travel was interrupted...

9/7/2005 8:52:14 AM

Katrina isn't going to cause an entirely new branch of government to be created, laws to be passed that allow significant government intrusion on privacy and civil rights, nor military action to be taken against a foreign enemy. Its 4 years later and 9/11 is still just about a daily mention.

From an economic standpoint I do believe 9/11 was more costly than any of the estimates I've seen for Katrina.

9/7/2005 9:16:22 AM

I wonder if we'll celebrate Hurricane Katrina like we do 9/11. A parade maybe, if NO is ever drained.

9/7/2005 9:21:32 AM

Quote :

"If you told the occupants of the WTC, employees at the Pentagon and people who purchased the tickets for the 4 flights that a really bad event was going to occur that could mean the destruction of said properties and loss of life something tells me they might have listened. "

wow, this is incredibly dumb.

a. occupants of WTC already knew in 2001 that they were a target for terrorists because it was already bombed before. the WTC was built to withstand a plane crash, so that means they knew a plane may crash into it.

b. Pentagon is where we make war, and everyone knows it. if a terrorist wants to hurt the US military and show your ability, they go to the heart.

c. planes were hijacked somewhat regularly in the 70's, and they constantly crash EVEN TODAY.

so, YES, everyone knew that a terrible event may occur and still went to work or flew on a plane.

people in N.O. knew that La is on the gulf coast and is susceptible to hurricanes, yet they still lived there and built homes and industry.

i find it hard to believe that no one knows what they're geting themselves into at any given time.

9/7/2005 12:19:57 PM

I blame Mayor Nagin for9-11. He's black.

[Edited on September 7, 2005 at 1:09 PM. Reason : .]

9/7/2005 1:09:07 PM

Quote :

"a. occupants of WTC already knew in 2001 that they were a target for terrorists because it was already bombed before. the WTC was built to withstand a plane crash, so that means they knew a plane may crash into it.[quote] 1993's bombing killed 6 people, big difference in scale and method. Also, just because something of some relevance has happened before does not mean you can expect it to happen again and to a much mroe significant degree. All buildings of that size and importance are built to withstand things like airplane impacts, it doesn't mean its anticipated but just a precaution. Heck, they make baby clothes out of flame retardant material but it doesn't mean they expect people to set babies on fire. [quote]b. Pentagon is where we make war, and everyone knows it. if a terrorist wants to hurt the US military and show your ability, they go to the heart."

Actually, I would think the Capitol Building, White House, or Statue of Liberty make for better targets for the impact they want. I wouldn't consier the Pentagon the best choice if hurting the US military is your intent. Its basically a bunch of paper pushers.

Quote :

"c. planes were hijacked somewhat regularly in the 70's, and they constantly crash EVEN TODAY."

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Aircraft-hijacking
"Airliner hijackings have declined since the peak of 385 incidents between 1967-76. In 1977-86 the total had dropped to 300 incidents and in 1987-96 this figure was reduced to 212."
Hardly regular if you are talking about 30-38 a year around the world in peak times. Also, hijackings of this scale had never been performed and definitely not with this sort of end result. A couple hundred are all that have been lost in the worst hijackings or crashes. Also, airline travel is far safer than automobile travel going by the statistics.

Quote :

"so, YES, everyone knew that a terrible event may occur and still went to work or flew on a plane. people in N.O. knew that La is on the gulf coast and is susceptible to hurricanes, yet they still lived there and built homes and industry. i find it hard to believe that no one knows what they're geting themselves into at any given time. "

There is a HUGE difference between knowing that there is potential for danger/risk and knowing that a specific tragic event is actually going to happen. The people of LA and MS were told that this specific event was going to happen and that evacuation is vital for safety reasons. There was absolutely no reason for any of the people who died in the terrorist attacks to suspect that something was going to happen. If the hurricane had been a spontaneous development right over the heart of New Orleans then I could see your point but its not the same thing.

[Edited on September 7, 2005 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/7/2005 1:22:10 PM

a. they still knew it was a TARGET for TERRORISTS.

b. obviously you are wrong.

c. 38 times a year equates to once every 10 days, you jackass. THATS PRETTY REGULAR.
In america how many terrorists have used interstate highways as targets?

poor people couldn't get out of La just like the 2000 people that couldn't get out of the twin towers.

Because we all knew the levees were going to break.

9/7/2005 4:06:18 PM

Quote :

"Because we all knew the levees were going to break. "

Multiple news sources were claiming this...

On Aug 28th:

Quote :

" A grim Mayor C. Ray Nagin earlier ordered the mandatory evacuation for his city of 485,000, conceding Katrina's storm surge pushing up the Mississippi River would swamp the city's system of levees, flooding the bowl-shaped city and causing potentially months of misery. ... Scientists predicted Katrina could easily overtake that levee system, swamping the city under a 30-feet cesspool of toxic chemicals, human waste and even coffins that could leave more than 1 million people homeless. "

-from the AP
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/08/28/build/nation/30-katrina_v.inc

On Aug 27th

Quote :

" The storm is predicted to go over the New Orleans area packing winds of about 144 mph when it arrives during the day Monday. The National Hurricane Center warns that Katrina could strengthen into a Category 5 monster, ... The general New Orleans area is below sea level and a strong hurricane has the potential to top hurricane levees, which are designed for a Category 3 storm packing winds of up to 130 mph. "

- from two Louisiana Reporters
http://2theadvocate.com/stories/082705/new_kat3001.shtml

[Edited on September 7, 2005 at 6:33 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 7, 2005 at 6:33 PM. Reason : wysiwyg]

9/7/2005 6:31:46 PM

Quote :

"Because we all knew the levees were going to break. "

how does it feel to be so WRONG?

9/7/2005 7:05:32 PM

i gotta say it feels good.

9/7/2005 7:41:14 PM

right on

9/7/2005 7:48:49 PM

Quote :

"a. they still knew it was a TARGET for TERRORISTS."

They didn't know an attack was going to happen whereas the people in LA knew that they were a target and they knew the exact event was going to happen. Big difference.

Quote :

"b. obviously you are wrong."

Nope.

Quote :

"c. 38 times a year equates to once every 10 days, you jackass. THATS PRETTY REGULAR. In america how many terrorists have used interstate highways as targets?"

38 times throughout the world when it was at its worst more than 30 years ago. Most hijackings occur in other countries where security is more lax (rare for first wolrd countries). Prior to 9/11 the last hijacking in the US was in 1991 (in that same time span there were 140 hijackings in foreign countries). So that makes 5 total hijackings in the US over the last 14 years (4 of which happened simultaneously). In other words, there was no reason to expect one to happen in the US. Also, the vast majority of hijackings were for getting somewhere (like Cuba) or for extortion. RARELY were there significant deaths.

9/8/2005 1:57:41 AM