If...

[Trenchmouth]

I still think America would be even more angry if one of the planes had brought down the Statue of Liberty.

Am I wrong?

[Crusoe]

In my humble opinion, yes, you're wrong. A human life is worth more than a statue (however large or famous), and I think the sheer scale of the loss of life is much more tragic -- and therefore anger-inducing.

[Silver Fire]

I think you're wrong, for the same reasons that Crusoe thinks you're wrong. I'm not angry because the WTC is destroyed, and part of the Pentagon got taken out. I'm mad because thousands of people died.

[Alereon]

I agree with trenchmouth. Human beings have trouble connecting themselves to large-scale tragedies like this unless they are personally involved. the destruction of the statue of liberty would have meant a symbol of freedom destroyed, and more people would have been able to connect with that. A photo of the statue of liberty burning would dominate the media.

FDISK

[Ice Wolf]

Hmm...
I'm an outsider on this one, but I can't entirely agree with FDISK.

Yes, the sight of a burning Statue of Liberty tied in with the huge loss of life from the WTC etc would, I'm sad to say, be a media godsend. The "perfect" image to use to represent an emotion or set of emotions the media is aiming for within the American people. At worst, a la Wag the Dog.

But the media don't need that to have actually happened. There has been a thousand miles of print and webpages depicting tears coming from the eyes of bald eagles, to lone flags at Ground Zero, to heaven knows what else as American patriotism, and media embellishment, soars. The Statue of Liberty wasn't hit in reality, but going by the reactions since that day it might as well have been.

[pennylane]

That's why I dislike statements such as "this was an attack on freedom". To me this was an attack on innocent people...

[Munch]

Originally posted by FDISK
Human beings have trouble connecting themselves to large-scale tragedies like this unless they are personally involved.

I can really only agree with this statement. To me, 6,333 lives is incomprehensible. I cannot relate to it. However, it is the individual stories that I react to. The thought of a single parent dying in the WTC/Pentagon with a child in daycare who doesn't get picked up. The story of the daughter whose mother died in the WTC and the father in the Pentagon. Crunchy Frog's personal experience, and countless others. If the SoL had been targeted, there wouldn't be nearly as many casualties.

We might have been angrier, but our sense of loss and sorrow wouldn't be nearly as high.

Here's another possible situation I'd like to hear a response to: Replace "Statue of Liberty" in the OP with "Capital Building".

[Rilchiam]

Originally posted by Silver Fire
I think you're wrong, for the same reasons that Crusoe thinks you're wrong. I'm not angry because the WTC is destroyed, and part of the Pentagon got taken out. I'm mad because thousands of people died.

And an entire borough (or most of one?) has become uninhabitable, at least for now. And entire businesses, or branches of same, have been wiped out. Transportation, finance, and the friggin' air, for crying out loud, were disrupted. Lady Liberty is on her own little island. If she had been destroyed, it would have been heartbreaking, but the NYSE would still have opened the next day, because it could have. What happened on 9/11 caused practical damage, not symbolic.