Disaster and Politics: Can Anything Ever Be More Tragic Than 9/11?

In February, the World Wildlife Fund launched a press campaign in Brazil. To illustrate the scale of the loss of life in the 2004 Asian tsunami, a television advertisement used the images of dozens of planes about to crash into New York City.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IA_H3vYYEs[/youtube]

The campaign provoked criticism for "reducing" a terrorist activity to a comparison with a natural disaster. So WWF Brazil and DDB, the Brazilian ad agency that designed the campaign, have acknowledged that "the comparison should have never been made". The joint statement says:

In no way was it done in bad faith or with disrespect to American suffering. WWF Brazil and DDB Brasil acknowledge that such an ad should never have been made, approved or published.

So is it unacceptable, at any time, to make a comparison with 9/11? Does it stand as a unique moment, because of the loss suffered on that day and/or the connection of that loss with "terrorism"?

A footnote from an interested observer: in the years after 9/11, I would offer the point that the 1984 Union Carbide chemical disaster at Bhopal in India had killed more people but had received far less attention as an example of the criminal taking of life. --- WSL

Comments

[Amy]

There may be nothing more tragic or more criminal than 9/11, but there are countless terrorist attacks that have been its equal throughout history. Is 9/11 worse than the Stalinist purges or the reign of Pol Pot or the Holocaust? Or the 1994 slaughter in Rwanda or those in the Balkins? All are terrorist acts. Is it worse that it happened in a few short hours rather than spread out over time? Here's a non-political non-terrorist analogy: is the wreck of the Titanic more tragic than 1517 traffic deaths? It seems worse when so many people die at once, but is it really? Terrorism is no less horrific when it happens in Sudan than when it happens in New York City.

[Amy]

re. Bhopal
If the situation were reversed and a similar incident happened in the US at a foreign-owned chemical plant, I can sadly guarantee a different response

[Mike Dunn]

I find the whole line of reasoning for this advert ridiculous. "The planet can kill ten times as many people with one tsunami than the terrorists- be nice to it or it'll come and get you!" So the planet is like Osama bin Laden times ten? Uh oh.

I don't think it's unacceptable to make comparisons with 9/11- WSL and Amy have both done it here, and I don't feel they were being particularly controversial. But I do think 9/11 was unique to some extent- for the way it unfolded live all in front of the world over the course of a few hours, and for the way that it affected so much afterwards (foreign policy, transport, surveillance, security, race relations...).

[Amy]

Mike,
You are right about the aftermath and the consequences. I was thinking about the event itself-- that it was not uniquely horrific for the people involved & those who cared about them.

I didn't realize the video was the ad-- assumed it was a 9/11 video... natural disaster & terrorism are not in the same ball park. It made me cringe to watch bec it's such a mismatch

[Mike Dunn]

@Amy I agree, any disaster, from a car crash to Bhopal to 9/11 is equally horrific for the victims. And "cringe" is exactly the right word for the video- what an embarrassment for the WWF.

[Scott]

You can't compare 9/11 to Bhopal. 9/11 was a planned action whereby the terrorists wanted to kill as many infidels as possible. The Bhopal incident was an industrial accident whereby an employee allowed water to enter a process vessel and it caused a reaction that built up pressure and methyl isocyanate was released.

It was not a planned action and comparing the two is akin to comparing apples and fish, in other words, there is no legitimate comparison.

While the Bhopal tragedy was sad and a nihgtmare for those involved, it was not planned and was in fact an accident where 9/11 was outright murder.