A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture
Mike Henley
I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed
difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth
a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll.
[WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img145&image=ruumiita4ft.jpg
[WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
Mike Jacoubowsky
Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on
a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic
merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.*
I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very
disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted)
just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the heels
of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to
ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No
ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to not
post would imply censorship.
But again, I'm not taking to task the OP for posting it here. After all, I
apparently found it interesting enough to want to follow the link and see
what it was all about, so there's some relevance to the newsgroup. But to
display the photo on a page with advertising, and with this caption
underneath the photo-
"Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average rating
is 3.88."...
Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would have
taken to get a higher rating.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Mike Henley
Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum
and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough
that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention.
Mark˛
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:SsrBd.4475$wZ2...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
> > I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed
> > difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth
> > a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll.
> > [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
> >
> > http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img145&image=ruumiita4ft.jpg
> > [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>
>
> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted
on
> a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
> regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and
artistic
> merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.*
>
> I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very
> disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted)
> just seems way-wrong to me.
I'll tell you what is offensive, Mr. Mike Jacoubowsky.
YOU...were more upset that there were ratings offered by default on this
particular web-site, than you apparently were to the horrific image of
death.
Don't start THIS AGAIN!!
Most people...UNLIKE YOU...were too busy being floored by the enormity of
the tragedy to notice something as petty as you have, least of all to stop
and whine about something so totally unrelated.
UNBELIEVABLE that one cannot post an image without
someone...somewhere...taking offense.
I am so sick of this politically-correct BS that I could just spit.
Mark˛
"Mike Henley" <casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104563991....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
EXACTLY!!!!!!
He was so busy looking for ways to get offended, that he completely ignored
the horror of that image, and instead focussed his supposed "sensitivities"
on total irrelevant BS.
I'm so sick of his kind of "sensitivity" that he now resides in my
kill-file.
Thank you for posting this image.
People need to understand the enormity of this tragedy, and if even it is
posted on the cover of PLAYBOY...I would appreciate it, simply because
people need to be confronted with REALity these days, rather than the
candy-coated versions so many of these quasi-sensitive phonies insist upon.
Thank you again for this link.
Mxsmanic
> I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
There are zillions of images like this that are never used by the media.
All disasters produce some pretty horrific images, but only the most
inoffensive among them are usually published. This one apparently was
taken by Darren Whiteside for Reuters in Banda Aceh on December 29
(according to the file information).
For those who'd like to know what the image contains before viewing it,
it's a portrait-oriented color photo of the beach, with innumerable
human cadavers crowded together amongst debris from buildings, floating
in the water. Most are somewhat bloated and blackened by advancing
decomposition (remember, this is 4 days after the tsunami) and floating
face-down in the water. Presumably they mainly drowned or died of
internal injuries after being stuck by debris, as very few of them show
any signs of gross injury externally.
I'm sure this type of image won't make it to most media outlets, but I
think it's very important that photojournalists take such pictures for
information and reference.
From a technical standpoint, the photo is unremarkable; clearly, it's
just intended as documentation.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on
> a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
> regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic
> merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.*
It was probably posted there just to give it wider exposure, since it
probably won't ever be published by the media.
> I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very
> disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted)
> just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the heels
> of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to
> ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No
> ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to not
> post would imply censorship.
Exactly. I'm totally opposed to censorship. If you don't want to see
the photo, don't look. But withholding information just to avoid
offending your delicate sensibilities is not acceptable. If you must
censor content, do it at the entrance to your PC, not at the exit of
someone else's PC.
Mxsmanic
> Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum
> and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough
> that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention.
Why did it shock you? The media have been talking for days about
135,000 people dead, and mass graves and cremations. Does it surprise
you that thousands of bodies would be floating near the beach?
Perhaps these photos should be more widely distributed, as it sounds
like people don't reflect very much on the texts they read. A photo is
harder to ignore, I think.
Mxsmanic
> Thank you for posting this image.
> People need to understand the enormity of this tragedy, and if even it is
> posted on the cover of PLAYBOY...I would appreciate it, simply because
> people need to be confronted with REALity these days, rather than the
> candy-coated versions so many of these quasi-sensitive phonies insist upon.
>
> Thank you again for this link.
I agree. This sort of image makes the magnitude of the disaster much
easier to grasp.
Marli
Sitting here in my safe air-conditioned room listening to reports on my TV,
I thought "OH how terrible". This image has just brought the magnitude of
the disaster to me..
I have been going to donate when things open up after the new year. I have
just doubled that donation.
Thanks for bring the reality to cosy room. The media do shelter us from the
reality of this sort of thing..
Zico
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:%ttBd.67897$QR1.37651@fed1read04...
Well why don't people get 'floored by the enormity of the tragedy' in Iraq ?
Tens of thousands of innocent women and children killed by
occupying forces, but no-one gives a toss, cos photos of their
dead bodies aren't being shown in the media.
JK.
Mxsmanic
> Well why don't people get 'floored by the enormity of the
> tragedy' in Iraq ?
Because a lot of information about Iraq is being withheld from them,
including the horrific pictures.
> Tens of thousands of innocent women and children killed by
> occupying forces, but no-one gives a toss, cos photos of their
> dead bodies aren't being shown in the media.
Right.
Zico
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:SsrBd.4475$wZ2...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed
> > difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth
> > a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll.
> > [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
> >
> > http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img145&image=ruumiita4ft.jpg
> > [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>
>
> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted
on
> a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
> regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and
artistic
> merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.*
Good point, asking for a aesthetic rating on something so awful
is pretty tasteless.
JK.
Mark˛
"Zico" <zsd...@syyy.com> wrote in message
news:33nhj7F...@individual.net...
We were floored. Also floored that nobody else cared to take Sadddam out,
even though he murdered **countless** thousands.
-Which is one of MANY reasons we are now there.
Oh.....
You mean you didn't notice the DELIBERATE tragedy under Saddam, but we
should now object to tragedies which come in spite of attempts to avoid,
right?
Interesting.
>
> Tens of thousands of innocent women and children killed by
> occupying forces, but no-one gives a toss, cos photos of their
> dead bodies aren't being shown in the media.
Yes they are.
Tens of thousands (assuming that's accurate) is very very sad, and actively
avoided by "occupying forces" with a few exceptions. Still, that is a
comparatively tiny number compared with the horror Saddam unleashed there
during his many years in power. I find it interesting that you're not upset
by hundreds of thousands of deaths under Saddam.
Try to keep a bit of perspective.
Sergio La Marca
> We were floored. Also floored that nobody else cared to take Sadddam out,
> even though he murdered **countless** thousands.
> -Which is one of MANY reasons we are now there.
> Oh.....
> You mean you didn't notice the DELIBERATE tragedy under Saddam, but we
> should now object to tragedies which come in spite of attempts to avoid,
> right?
> Interesting.
>
> >
> > Tens of thousands of innocent women and children killed by
> > occupying forces, but no-one gives a toss, cos photos of their
> > dead bodies aren't being shown in the media.
>
> Yes they are.
> Tens of thousands (assuming that's accurate) is very very sad, and
actively
> avoided by "occupying forces" with a few exceptions. Still, that is a
> comparatively tiny number compared with the horror Saddam unleashed there
> during his many years in power. I find it interesting that you're not
upset
> by hundreds of thousands of deaths under Saddam.
> Try to keep a bit of perspective.
>
Hi all, I also think the photo was disturbing indeed but needed to be seen,
by adult people at least.
We all try to imagine the vastness of the distruction there but I think
noone without preceding experiences in disasters can truly come near the
real situation. So a photo does help.
As for the point made in the last message, here are my two cents.
As a long-term human rights activist I've come across discussions like these
many times. Every part has its reasons and fierce patrioctical feelings or
equally felt pacifist ideas can flame the discussion. I have long ago, in my
conscience, settled on a practical way to take part on such arguments. I've
taken the Human Rights Declarations as a non-trespassable line against which
to check every action. If it agrees with HRD, it's ok, if it doesn't agree,
it is questionable (not absolutely wrong, look, but surely questionable...)
So I wouldn't see killing thousands of people *better* than killing tens of
thousands, or object to the latter more in perspective than object to the
former... Every single life and every single person counts and has to be
preserved, no matter the effort it may take on our part. That's my thought,
anyway. Now we should all do what we can to help those unfortunate people,
and not forget all the others in so many countries (not counting our own
neighborood...) whose tragedies we do not know from the media.
Best wishes to all.
Sergio La Marca
Italy
Mike Henley
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Mike Henley writes:
>
> > I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for
publication.
>
> There are zillions of images like this that are never used by the
media.
> All disasters produce some pretty horrific images, but only the most
> inoffensive among them are usually published. This one apparently was
> taken by Darren Whiteside for Reuters in Banda Aceh on December 29
> (according to the file information).
This was Banda Aceh?
Wow, Banda Aceh was badly hit, as it was so close to the epicenter.
I just saw a video from Banda Aceh on the 26th! Very heart-wrenching.
The violence of the water in the video if you look closely at it is
staggering. There's what I think is a child crying and a woman calming
him. I think he lost his parents; I don't know indonesian but he said
what sounded like "mama, papa" while watching the water :-(
(links all same video - just different mirror)
http://steelerdirtfreak.com/videos/KATC.wmv
http://gloubinet.free.fr/tsunami/03.katc.wmv
http://www.kba-solutions.ru/ThaiVideo/KATC.wmv
And here's a PDF of satellite images of the before and after the
tusnami in Banda Aceh
http://www.digitalglobe.com/images/tsunami/Banda_Aceh_Tsunami_Damage.pdf
And here's an image of the grand mosque that appears in the satellite
photos
http://tinypic.com/159dlk
Mxsmanic
> This was Banda Aceh?
That's what the info on the JPEG says.
Bill Crocker
it available. The amount of censorship in the U.S. media theses days, too
often shelters us from the reality of the times we live in. I immediately
showed this to my wife, and son. I also sent it to everyone on my mailing
list (with the appropriate warning). This leaves it up to their discretion,
as to viewing it, or not...just like you did.
I'm quite certain that those of us who viewed the 9/11 tragedy, as well as
Iraq, though the eyes of the media, have no concept of the reality there
either.
Bill Crocker
"Mike Henley" <casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104556558.7...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Annika1980
>We were floored. Also floored that nobody else cared to take Sadddam out,
>even though he murdered **countless** thousands.
How do you know that? Cause the government told you it was so?
If true, then he murdered most of those people while having the full support of
the US. Uncle Rummy and Saddam were best pals until Saddam stepped a little
too close to Bush oil in Kuwait.
So don't even offer that bullshit as a reason that we are there. It's total
crap. Sudan is the proof.
John EO
toll may be as high as 1,000. Each day it has gone up by tens of thousands
and yet any video that is shown only shows some resort area where video
cameras were running as people watch the waves in awe.
Yes, you see a few people floating by and wonder if they made it, hoping
that they did, however until I saw this photo I can only imagine the "real"
devastation that occured to kill this huge amount of people. I don't have a
strong stomach for photos like this and will not need to look a second time
but it did touch me in many more ways than I thought it would but I do
partially understand the tradgedy a lot more now that I have seen such
graphic proof.
Bless those souls!
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c0dt052rd3r4mf09...@4ax.com...
Big Bill
I have to wonder if the rating thing isn't something added to all
pics? I'm not familiar with ImageShack, so I don't know.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Fletis Humplebacker
"Mxsmanic"
> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>
> > Thank you for posting this image.
> > People need to understand the enormity of this tragedy, and if even it is
> > posted on the cover of PLAYBOY...I would appreciate it, simply because
> > people need to be confronted with REALity these days, rather than the
> > candy-coated versions so many of these quasi-sensitive phonies insist upon.
> >
> > Thank you again for this link.
>
> I agree. This sort of image makes the magnitude of the disaster much
> easier to grasp.
If someone needs a photo to grasp 120 thousand plus people dying
something is missing.
Mike Henley
It is added to all pictures.
JunkMonkey
destruction. It is one thing to "know" something and quite another to truly
absorb it and make it a part of you.
I have been avoiding this sort of post because I didn't want to participate
in some sort of juvenile, voyeuristic thrill seeking. But in a moment of
weakness I looked at the photo. It was a good thing that I did I DO now
understand just how pervasive the death and destruction has been, until now,
it has been just a number and a terrible story on the news.
"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
news:10tdfqi...@corp.supernews.com...
Tim Denning
spread in one of the UK tabloids - possibly the Daily Mirror
I agree with your sentiments - the media has a duty to inform us of world
events and neither sensationalise or censor what is happening - Er in an
ideal world that is :-(
Thanks to the OP for the link
Tim
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5svct09bfiqtjbhsq...@4ax.com...
> Mike Henley writes:
<snip>
> I'm sure this type of image won't make it to most media outlets, but I
> think it's very important that photojournalists take such pictures for
> information and reference.
<snip>
Big Bill
wrote:
Which sort of means that the complaints about it are kinda pointless.
Mxsmanic
> If someone needs a photo to grasp 120 thousand plus people dying
> something is missing.
Yes: experience. But a photo is less traumatic.
Mxsmanic
> You know ... I saw the first news report on the TV and it claimed the death
> toll may be as high as 1,000. Each day it has gone up by tens of thousands
> and yet any video that is shown only shows some resort area where video
> cameras were running as people watch the waves in awe.
Television needs moving images of reasonable quality. There are only so
many to go around, so you see the same images over and over. Dead
people don't move, so showing images of the dead isn't as exciting as
showing images of a moving wave.
Zico
"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
news:10tdfqi...@corp.supernews.com...
>
The experience ? ;-)
Jer
>>From: "Mark˛" mjmorgan(lowesteven number here)@cox..net
>
>
>>We were floored. Also floored that nobody else cared to take Sadddam out,
>>even though he murdered **countless** thousands.
>
>
> How do you know that? Cause the government told you it was so?
Sure. Doesn't everybody believe the trash that slithers out past the
Greenbelt?
>
> If true, then he murdered most of those people while having the full support of
> the US. Uncle Rummy and Saddam were best pals until Saddam stepped a little
> too close to Bush oil in Kuwait.
I still have the visions of that young Kuwait girl sniffing tissues and
testifying before a congressional panel about infant incubators being
stolen, tossing the babies on the floor. The media was completely duped
by this sham and U.S. administration officials not only knew it was a
sham, but let them get away with it until someone finally had the guts
to pull the curtain back revealing the Bush oil deals behind it.
Everything I've heard from them since that moment is held in the highest
scrutiny because they have little credibility with me.
>
> So don't even offer that bullshit as a reason that we are there. It's total
> crap. Sudan is the proof.
Abso-freaking-lutely
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
William Graham
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:SsrBd.4475$wZ2...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
>> I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed
>> difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth
>> a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll.
>> [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>>
>> http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img145&image=ruumiita4ft.jpg
>> [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>
>
> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted
> on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
> regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and
> artistic merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you
> *should.*
>
> disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted)
> heels of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time
> to ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No
> ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to
> not post would imply censorship.
>
> apparently found it interesting enough to want to follow the link and see
> what it was all about, so there's some relevance to the newsgroup. But to
> display the photo on a page with advertising, and with this caption
> underneath the photo-
>
> "Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average
> rating is 3.88."...
>
> Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would have
> taken to get a higher rating.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
Well, one can always hope that posting such images will incite some people
to send money to the area relief funds. - In this respect, it is better to
post them sooner, than later......
William Graham
"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
news:10tdfqi...@corp.supernews.com...
>
the movies and saw a Movietone News clip of bull dozers pushing
skeleton-like bodies into an open trench at a Nazi death camp.....That clip
is still burned into my memory, and I am 69 years old today. No amount of
words could ever replace that newsclip in my memory.......
William Graham
"Deeyenda Maddick" <no...@all.invalid> wrote in message >
No matter how many deaths are claimed to have occurred under Saddam, it
> still was an Iraqi internal affair, .....
Oh, that's very convenient.....Just shut your eyes, friend....It doesn't
concern us.....As long as the tragedy is, "over the hill" somewhere, we
shouldn't bother about it. How about if we didn't send the tsunami victims
any help, because, "It's their affair" and "we shouldn't get involved in
it?"
Maybe we shouldn't have gotten, "involved" in the, "Adolf Hitler
Affair", either.........
William Graham
> Mike Jacoubowsky writes:
>
>> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted
>> on
>> a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
>> regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and
>> artistic
>> merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.*
>
> probably won't ever be published by the media.
>
>> I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very
>> disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted)
>> just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the
>> heels
>> of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to
>> ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No
>> ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to
>> not
>> post would imply censorship.
>
> the photo, don't look. But withholding information just to avoid
> offending your delicate sensibilities is not acceptable. If you must
> censor content, do it at the entrance to your PC, not at the exit of
> someone else's PC.
>
Yes.....The main excuse of all censurers throughout history was, "It's just
for the good of the people." It's amazing that, in this late day and age,
they are still using that excuse........
Aguyathome
>by adult people at least.
>We all try to imagine the vastness of the distruction there but I think
>noone without preceding experiences in disasters can truly come near the
>real situation. So a photo does help.
>As for the point made in the last message, here are my two cents.
>As a long-term human rights activist I've come across discussions like these
>many times. Every part has its reasons and fierce patrioctical feelings or
>equally felt pacifist ideas can flame the discussion. I have long ago, in my
>conscience, settled on a practical way to take part on such arguments. I've
>taken the Human Rights Declarations as a non-trespassable line against which
>to check every action. If it agrees with HRD, it's ok, if it doesn't agree,
>it is questionable (not absolutely wrong, look, but surely questionable...)
>So I wouldn't see killing thousands of people *better* than killing tens of
>thousands, or object to the latter more in perspective than object to the
>former... Every single life and every single person counts and has to be
>preserved, no matter the effort it may take on our part. That's my thought,
>anyway. Now we should all do what we can to help those unfortunate people,
>and not forget all the others in so many countries (not counting our own
>neighborood...) whose tragedies we do not know from the media.
>Best wishes to all.
>Sergio La Marca
>Italy
>
>
The photo should be seen by those who can handle viewing it. This is a terrible
tragedy and as awful as it may be, this photo shows how terrible things really
were, and gives you a real understanding of how so many thousands of good
people lost their lives. It's the worst single human tragedy that I know of
that has taken place in my 41 years on the planet, but these things do happen
as much as we all wish that they never would. Steering clear of all such images
will not make it go away, and only makes it easier to wipe away from our
memories in a few days and go back to life as usual.
So far as the "rating" at the bottom of the screen goes, I'm sure it's not a
sick attempt at humour, but most likely a standard component used for all
photos uploaded to that particular website.
The world needs to pull together and give these poor people anything, and
everything that they might need in the coming weeks and years. Just think, even
people who may have big the "big wigs," successful, and pillars of society, if
lucky enough to be alive, have probably lost everything and are as poor if they
have been homeless for their entire lives. It isn't likely that many of them
had any sort of insurance or safety net to help them in the time of such an
unforseeable event.
Take care,
JD
Let's all do something, anything to help.
Jim Redelfs
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on
> a site that asks you to "rate this image?"
I'm sure it's not JUST you, but I suspect your reaction may be shared by a
minority of those that viewed the disturbing image.
I admit that I was SLIGHTLY disgusted that the image was accompanied by an
invitation to RATE the photo. I quickly dismissed that fact by my assumption
that the "rating" thing accompanies all images on that site.
I read only a few replies prior to adding my own, so who knows what I'll read
next. I do, however, take exception to the insensitive clod that proudly
announced he'd "killfiled" you for your VERY understandable reaction - some of
which I share.
JR
David Dyer-Bennet
>> I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
>> I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed
>> difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth
>> a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll.
>> [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>>
>> http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img145&image=ruumiita4ft.jpg
>> [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>
>
> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one,
> posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I
> understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on
> its technical and artistic merits, but just because you *can* do
> that doesn't mean you *should.*
Doesn't mean anything; in particular, it just means that that's the
photo hosting service the photographer uses. You can't turn those
features off on any of the systems I've known. He probably has
nowhere else to post the picture.
I find many people, including you based on only a small amount of
information, to be weirdly over-sensitive on this issue.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Jim Redelfs
> why don't people get 'floored by the enormity of the tragedy' in Iraq ?
Because it is not an ENORMOUS tragedy. I am mostly convinced that it isn't
even a TRAGEDY. ...certainly not as enormous as the "tragedy" that went on
there for YEARS before our arrival.
> Tens of thousands of innocent women and children killed by
> occupying forces
Tens of thousands? Only in your prejudiced, closed mind.
:(
JR
The Dave©
> >> >Good point, asking for a aesthetic rating on something so awful
> >> >is pretty tasteless.
> >> >
> >> pics? I'm not familiar with ImageShack, so I don't know.
> >>
>
> Which sort of means that the complaints about it are kinda pointless.
I agree that it is tasteless in this case, and when I noticed I rolled
my eyes when I saw it, then went back to the picture itself. But, I
also understood that it was probably loaded up to an automatic website
of some kind that has that on every picture, and no person reviews them
for this kind of thing. Tasteless, yes, but not intentionally so, in
my eyes.
--
As long as Major League Baseball expects public funding for their
facilities, and as long as they enjoy added level of freedom of
operation from an anti-trust exemption (an added level of freedom that
I could never get for any business I might operate), there is a public
trust and public interest involved. Basically, they owe me... and every
other responsible taxpayer and citizen. If they want complete freedom
to maximize profits as they wish, that's fine, but only if they finance
their own stadiums, and operate under the same rules and laws that the
rest of us have to.
The Dave©
> Yes.....The main excuse of all censurers throughout history was,
> "It's just for the good of the people." It's amazing that, in this
> late day and age, they are still using that excuse........
Well, truth be told, they use that tired old excuse for one reason
only... it still works. There are enough people who still believe it.
The Dave©
> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one,
> posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I
> understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on
> doesn't mean you *should.*
>
> disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was
> posted) just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so
> close on the heels of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the
> Internet. No time to ponder responsibility, just post it quick before
> somebody else does. No ethics involved, because ethics are to be
> decided by the viewer, and to not post would imply censorship.
>
> all, I apparently found it interesting enough to want to follow the
> link and see what it was all about, so there's some relevance to the
> newsgroup. But to display the photo on a page with advertising, and
> with this caption underneath the photo-
>
> "Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average
> rating is 3.88."...
>
> Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would
> have taken to get a higher rating.
Are you blaming the site, or the OP?
The Dave©
> > You know ... I saw the first news report on the TV and it claimed
> > the death toll may be as high as 1,000. Each day it has gone up by
> > tens of thousands and yet any video that is shown only shows some
> > resort area where video cameras were running as people watch the
> > waves in awe.
>
> Television needs moving images of reasonable quality. There are only
> so many to go around, so you see the same images over and over. Dead
> people don't move, so showing images of the dead isn't as exciting as
> showing images of a moving wave.
I don't think it's just that. In the US we're (unjustly, in my mind)
sheltered from reality like that. There were plenty of pictures of
people jumping from the WTC on 9-11, yet people in the US didn't see
that. Even afterward, it's rare to see the imigaes of the planes
flying into the buildings anymore. It's a value-judgement on the part
of the media, and this situation was probably similar.
The Dave©
> No matter how many deaths are claimed to have occurred under Saddam,
> invading force from half a world away who went there under the false
> pretext of WMD, and has since taken countless many more lives in
> collateral damage, and destroyed the infrastructure for all.
It's acceptbale if somebody else does it way far away? How repugnant.
Roland Karlsson
news:wtwBd.67908$QR1.24474@fed1read04:
> Tens of thousands (assuming that's accurate) is very very sad, and
> actively avoided by "occupying forces" with a few exceptions. Still,
> that is a comparatively tiny number compared with the horror Saddam
> unleashed there during his many years in power.
You cannot use Saddam as a motivation for occuping Iraq.
Saddam is not there any more. You have got him.
/Roland
William Graham
"Roland Karlsson" <roland_do...@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D1EAE07...@130.133.1.4...
You're kidding......Right? - You think we should have just walked away the
day we found Saddam in that hole in the ground? I've got news for you:
Saddam Hussein is my excuse for attacking, occupying, and staying in Iraq
until they have a stable democratic government, and are back on their feet
with adequate desalination plants, sewage treatment plants, health clinics,
operating pipelines and oil refineries, and electric power services. That's
what that 80 Billion dollars is for. All of this should have happened back
in 1991, but better late than never........
The Dave©
> > Tens of thousands (assuming that's accurate) is very very sad, and
> > actively avoided by "occupying forces" with a few exceptions.
> > Still, that is a comparatively tiny number compared with the
> > horror Saddam unleashed there during his many years in power.
>
> You cannot use Saddam as a motivation for occuping Iraq.
> Saddam is not there any more. You have got him.
So, now that we've got him, are you suggesting that a full pull-out is
in order so that their society can sink into utter chaos and civil war
would be in order? How many people die then, and for what reason?
--
As long as Major League Baseball expects public funding for their
facilities, and as long as they enjoy an added level of freedom of
operation from an anti-trust exemption, then there is a public trust
and public interest involved. IOW, they owe me.
The Dave©
> > You cannot use Saddam as a motivation for occuping Iraq.
> > Saddam is not there any more. You have got him.
>
> You're kidding......Right? - You think we should have just walked
> away the day we found Saddam in that hole in the ground? I've got
> news for you: Saddam Hussein is my excuse for attacking, occupying,
> and staying in Iraq until they have a stable democratic government,
> and are back on their feet with adequate desalination plants, sewage
> treatment plants, health clinics, operating pipelines and oil
> refineries, and electric power services. That's what that 80 Billion
> dollars is for. All of this should have happened back in 1991, but
> better late than never........
I agree with you in sentiment, but I don't see all the good stuff
happening that you hope for. I believe we should stay until some kind
of government stability is achieved and some kind of base for
infrastructure is in place, but I also believe we will have to make a
judgement call at some point that it's the best we're gonna get and
then get out. For right or for wrong, alot of the final stuff they're
going have to do themselves according to their own wants and needs.
"America Jr." it ain't gonna be. We have Canada for that.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Canada quip was a joke, for you overly-sensitive types who didn't
get it.
Cynicor
"The DaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:mMEBd.1843$Mp7...@news01.roc.ny...
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > You know ... I saw the first news report on the TV and it claimed
>> > the death toll may be as high as 1,000. Each day it has gone up by
>> > tens of thousands and yet any video that is shown only shows some
>> > resort area where video cameras were running as people watch the
>> > waves in awe.
>>
>> Television needs moving images of reasonable quality. There are only
>> so many to go around, so you see the same images over and over. Dead
>> people don't move, so showing images of the dead isn't as exciting as
>> showing images of a moving wave.
>
> I don't think it's just that. In the US we're (unjustly, in my mind)
> sheltered from reality like that. There were plenty of pictures of
> people jumping from the WTC on 9-11, yet people in the US didn't see
> that.
We didn't? I still have the NY Times from 9-12 that showed people
jumping/falling.
The Dave©
> >> Television needs moving images of reasonable quality. There are
> only >> so many to go around, so you see the same images over and
> over. Dead >> people don't move, so showing images of the dead isn't
> as exciting as >> showing images of a moving wave.
> >
> > I don't think it's just that. In the US we're (unjustly, in my
> > mind) sheltered from reality like that. There were plenty of
> > pictures of people jumping from the WTC on 9-11, yet people in the
> > US didn't see that.
>
> We didn't? I still have the NY Times from 9-12 that showed people
> jumping/falling.
Ok, fine, *MOST* people in the US didn't see that. It was not on any
of the network broadcasts that I watched, for example, nor was it in
any of the west coast papers that I'm aware of. Many Europeans,
especially in this newsgroup, commented on how those shots were shown
over and over on television in their countries. If you choose to lose
the point of the comment over an isolated exception, that's your
choice, but the intent of the point still stands.
--
As long as Major League Baseball expects public funding for their
facilities, and as long as they enjoy an added level of freedom of
operation from an anti-trust exemption, then there is a public trust
and public interest involved. IOW, they owe me.
William Graham
> The Canada quip was a joke, for you overly-sensitive types who didn't
> get it.
Of course....Exactly when we should leave is a judgment call....the people
whose opinions I like the best have "guesstimated" in around 18
months......But to say that there is no justification for staying now that
Saddam Hussein has been deactivated is ludicrous.......
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough
>> that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention.
>
> EXACTLY!!!!!!
> He was so busy looking for ways to get offended, that he completely
> ignored
> the horror of that image, and instead focussed his supposed
> "sensitivities"
> on total irrelevant BS.
> I'm so sick of his kind of "sensitivity" that he now resides in my
> kill-file.
> Thank you for posting this image.
You fail to understand my point. I will try again (but now that I'm
kill-filed...).
My point wasn't that the photo shouldn't be shown. I think the opposite in
fact. But it detracts greatly from the tragedy to put it in the context of
being "rated" as a good-or-bad photo. You're trying way too hard to to find
offending examples of censorship & political correctness that you're missing
my point. Context *is* relevant.
The Dave©
> Of course....Exactly when we should leave is a judgment call....the
> people whose opinions I like the best have "guesstimated" in around
> 18 months......
Sounds reasonable, but I would never unfairly hold anybody to that at
this point.
> But to say that there is no justification for staying
> now that Saddam Hussein has been deactivated is ludicrous.......
I agree completely. That's like saying "Ok, we got our guy, we're
outta here. Now that we've de-stabilized your power and bureaucratic
governing structure and created a HUGE leadership void, you all can now
go about the business of a civil war and killing each other in large
numbers until something shakes out." That's irresponsible and
ridiculous. That would be worse than what's happening now.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> YOU...were more upset that there were ratings offered by default on this
> particular web-site, than you apparently were to the horrific image of
> death.
>
> Don't start THIS AGAIN!!
>
> Most people...UNLIKE YOU...were too busy being floored by the enormity of
> the tragedy to notice something as petty as you have, least of all to stop
> and whine about something so totally unrelated.
>
> UNBELIEVABLE that one cannot post an image without
> someone...somewhere...taking offense.
>
> I am so sick of this politically-correct BS that I could just spit.
I'm supposed to apologize for being offended that the photo was used in a
commercial for-profit setting where people are making money by having it
seen? That somebody should have the guts or whatever to recognize that the
massive destruction and death deserve better than that?
Even the "evil" network TV folk ran the 9/11 coverage for probably a day
solid without commercial interruption. And no, that wasn't because no
advertiser would pay to be associated with it.
Fred & Sandra Mueller
Daily Star last week.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> rating is 3.88."...
>>
>> Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would
>> have taken to get a higher rating.
>
> Are you blaming the site, or the OP?
Definitely not blaming the OP. The photo needs to be seen. It's a tragedy of
epic proportions, and there's no reason to hide from it. Viewing the photos
helps us to understand the magnitude of human suffering, the need to provide
aid and work on how such things might be mitigated (you can't prevent a
Tsunami, but you can certainly minimize the loss of life).
And I'll admit, I over-reacted. Ideally, there should be a site where such
photos can be viewed without advertising or something asking for a rating.
Maybe I should have been offended only by the fact that many *had* taken the
opportunity to rate the photo?
Mxsmanic
> It's the worst single human tragedy that I know of
> that has taken place in my 41 years on the planet ...
That's the same thing the radio announcer said about the Hindenburg
crash.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
William Graham
>> William Graham wrote:
>> Of course....Exactly when we should leave is a judgment call....the
>> people whose opinions I like the best have "guesstimated" in around
>> 18 months......
>
> Sounds reasonable, but I would never unfairly hold anybody to that at
> this point.
>
>> But to say that there is no justification for staying
>> now that Saddam Hussein has been deactivated is ludicrous.......
>
> I agree completely. That's like saying "Ok, we got our guy, we're
> outta here. Now that we've de-stabilized your power and bureaucratic
> governing structure and created a HUGE leadership void, you all can now
> go about the business of a civil war and killing each other in large
> numbers until something shakes out." That's irresponsible and
> ridiculous. That would be worse than what's happening now.
Not only that, but that is exactly what we have been accused of doing too
often in the past. In fact, it is the main reason why Bush Senior pulled out
when he did in march of 1991........He didn't want to bother with all the
work that would be involved with replacing Saddam Hussein, so he just walked
away from it and left him in power. I was so mad at him that I didn't vote
for him in 1992........
Mark˛
Perhaps you would prefer we remove him, and then disappear?
Interesting strategy.
Mark˛
> > William Graham wrote:
> > > You cannot use Saddam as a motivation for occuping Iraq.
> > > Saddam is not there any more. You have got him.
> >
> > You're kidding......Right? - You think we should have just walked
> > away the day we found Saddam in that hole in the ground? I've got
> > news for you: Saddam Hussein is my excuse for attacking, occupying,
> > and staying in Iraq until they have a stable democratic government,
> > and are back on their feet with adequate desalination plants, sewage
> > treatment plants, health clinics, operating pipelines and oil
> > refineries, and electric power services. That's what that 80 Billion
> > dollars is for. All of this should have happened back in 1991, but
> > better late than never........
>
> I agree with you in sentiment, but I don't see all the good stuff
> happening that you hope for.
These things require attention spans in excess of a housefly.
The world has become instant gratification boobs when it comes to patience
with world events have historically taken years/decades for resolution.
Matt Ion
> Mike Henley writes:
>
>
>>Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum
>>and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough
>>that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention.
>
>
> Why did it shock you? The media have been talking for days about
> 135,000 people dead, and mass graves and cremations. Does it surprise
> you that thousands of bodies would be floating near the beach?
It's not surprising that there are all those bodies there, but it's hard
for most of us outside these areas to imagine what that many dead people
actually LOOKS like, which is why the picture comes as such a shock.
> Perhaps these photos should be more widely distributed, as it sounds
> like people don't reflect very much on the texts they read. A photo is
> harder to ignore, I think.
I don't think it's so much that people don't absorb what they read; as
has been noted before, most pictures published in the media are so
sanitized - bodies are covered or in bags, and only small numbers of
them shown at a time - that we're just not used to scenes like that.
135,000 dead is an unfathomable number - consider that even in that
picture, there are probably no more than 200-300 bodies, which is more
like what we're used to seeing in the aftermath of a plane crash or
something... and again, with the bodies mostly bagged or covered up already.
Roland Karlsson
> Perhaps you would prefer we remove him, and then disappear?
> Interesting strategy.
I just say that you have to be consistent in your argumentation.
If you want to stay there you cannot use Saddam as a motivation.
/Roland
The Dave©
> > > You're kidding......Right? - You think we should have just walked
> > > away the day we found Saddam in that hole in the ground? I've got
> > > news for you: Saddam Hussein is my excuse for attacking,
> > > occupying, and staying in Iraq until they have a stable
> > > democratic government, and are back on their feet with adequate
> > > desalination plants, sewage treatment plants, health clinics,
> > > operating pipelines and oil refineries, and electric power
> > > services. That's what that 80 Billion dollars is for. All of this
> > > should have happened back in 1991, but better late than
> > > never........
> >
> > I agree with you in sentiment, but I don't see all the good stuff
> > happening that you hope for.
>
> These things require attention spans in excess of a housefly.
Which is exactly why I don't see them happening.
Mark˛
??
We stay for many reasons, not the least of which is that the removal of
Saddam necessitates the difficult process of establishing government in
replacement of him. This is most certainly a part of why we stay. We
cannot "continually" remove him, but his removal carries with it certain
follow-up commitments...including the power vacuum that typically follows
the removal of any dictator.
Cynicor
"The DaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote:
>> Cynicor wrote:
>> > I don't think it's just that. In the US we're (unjustly, in my
>> > mind) sheltered from reality like that. There were plenty of
>> > pictures of people jumping from the WTC on 9-11, yet people in the
>> > US didn't see that.
>>
>> We didn't? I still have the NY Times from 9-12 that showed people
>> jumping/falling.
>
> Ok, fine, *MOST* people in the US didn't see that. It was not on any
> of the network broadcasts that I watched, for example, nor was it in
> any of the west coast papers that I'm aware of. Many Europeans,
> especially in this newsgroup, commented on how those shots were shown
> over and over on television in their countries. If you choose to lose
> the point of the comment over an isolated exception, that's your
> choice, but the intent of the point still stands.
Yes, yes I would. :D
Roland Karlsson
> So, now that we've got him, are you suggesting that a full pull-out is
> in order so that their society can sink into utter chaos and civil war
> would be in order? How many people die then, and for what reason?
No - reread what I wrote - I did not suggest anything at all,
except that you cannot use Saddam as a motivation to be there.
I fully understand the problem of withdraval. Chaos it will be.
A thought though - if you cannot withdraw now - when can you do so?
/Roland
Fletis Humplebacker
"Deeyenda Maddick"
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:13:17 -0800, Mark² wrote:
>
> > Yes they are.
> > Tens of thousands (assuming that's accurate) is very very sad, and
> > actively avoided by "occupying forces" with a few exceptions. Still,
> > that is a comparatively tiny number compared with the horror Saddam
> > that you're not upset by hundreds of thousands of deaths under Saddam.
>
> No matter how many deaths are claimed to have occurred under Saddam, it
> still was an Iraqi internal affair, quite different than an invading force
> from half a world away who went there under the false pretext of WMD, and
> has since taken countless many more lives in collateral damage, and
> destroyed the infrastructure for all.
Germany was an internal affair before WWII as well. No one
wanted to intervene and about 50 million died as a result. If Saddam
was left to develope nuclear or biological weapons the way he wanted
the death figures now, however sad, would be a welcome alternative.
Perspective is unfortunantly diminished by political motives.
Fletis Humplebacker
"Zico"
>
> "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
> news:10tdfqi...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Mxsmanic"
> > > "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
> > >
> > > > Thank you for posting this image.
> is
> > > > posted on the cover of PLAYBOY...I would appreciate it, simply because
> > > > people need to be confronted with REALity these days, rather than the
> > > > candy-coated versions so many of these quasi-sensitive phonies insist
> upon.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you again for this link.
> > >
> > > I agree. This sort of image makes the magnitude of the disaster much
> > > easier to grasp.
> >
> >
> > If someone needs a photo to grasp 120 thousand plus people dying
> > something is missing.
>
> The experience ? ;-)
No. If you need to experience a tsunami to understand 120+
thousand dead is truely horrible you are missing a soul.
The Dave©
> I just say that you have to be consistent in your argumentation.
> If you want to stay there you cannot use Saddam as a motivation.
Any job is not finished until all the loose ends are tied up and
accounted for and any residual effects are addressed.
Do you wash the dishes after you eat? If so, why? The meal is done.
An imperfect analogy, but an analogy nonetheless. There's 'clean-up'
work to be done after a primary objective is accomplished, and that
work requires time and effort, also.
Fletis Humplebacker
"William Graham"
>
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> > If someone needs a photo to grasp 120 thousand plus people dying
> > something is missing.
> But the photos can make it more real....When I was 10 years old, I went to
> the movies and saw a Movietone News clip of bull dozers pushing
> skeleton-like bodies into an open trench at a Nazi death camp.....That clip
> is still burned into my memory, and I am 69 years old today. No amount of
> words could ever replace that newsclip in my memory.......
I agree with that but unless someone lives in a cage they've
seen the video clips of the tsunami. I see the lesson
about man's inhumanity to man a bit different than the
unfortunant outcome of a natural disaster. The only thing
learned here is that the world needs to get together with a
warning system of some type.
Roland Karlsson
> Any job is not finished until all the loose ends are tied up and
> accounted for and any residual effects are addressed.
>
> Do you wash the dishes after you eat? If so, why? The meal is done.
> An imperfect analogy, but an analogy nonetheless. There's 'clean-up'
> work to be done after a primary objective is accomplished, and that
> work requires time and effort, also.
>
Those are valid arguments. Not all that precise arguments though.
What exactly does bombing towns in Iraq now fit into the plan of
tieing up loose ends and doing the clean-up work?
/Roland
The Dave©
> > Any job is not finished until all the loose ends are tied up and
> > accounted for and any residual effects are addressed.
> >
> > Do you wash the dishes after you eat? If so, why? The meal is
> > done. An imperfect analogy, but an analogy nonetheless. There's
> > 'clean-up' work to be done after a primary objective is
> > accomplished, and that work requires time and effort, also.
>
> Those are valid arguments. Not all that precise arguments though.
> What exactly does bombing towns in Iraq now fit into the plan of
> tieing up loose ends and doing the clean-up work?
You say that almost as if we're bombing indescriminately for our own
amusement. That's not the case. We're working on helping establish a
new government, and some groups (who know damn well they'd never attain
power by election or any other legitimate means and resort to force to
try to achieve their aims) are trying to thwart that. While doing the
work of establishing a new government and infrastructure, you do also
have to deal with people who are literally attacking you. If there
were no resistence from these groups, do you believe that we would
still be "bombing towns"?
Steve
I dont trust others .
"Marli" <xx...@xxxx.xx> wrote in message news:41d6870b$1...@quokka.wn.com.au...
> Thanks for posting the image/link.
>
> Sitting here in my safe air-conditioned room listening to reports on my
TV,
> I thought "OH how terrible". This image has just brought the magnitude of
> the disaster to me..
>
> I have been going to donate when things open up after the new year. I have
> just doubled that donation.
>
> Thanks for bring the reality to cosy room. The media do shelter us from
the
> reality of this sort of thing..
>
>
>
>
>
Nick Beard
import of the disaster. As I studied the photo in grate detail, I just
thought about all those poor folk who maybe that morning were alive and
well, doing their daily stuff like Hotel work, Playing on the beach, running
their business, teaching kids etc and now are all piled up with the
driftwood, waiting to be buried or cremated en-mass with out the benifit of
a decent funeral (by western standards anyhow). Where do you plan to end up
by tomorrow night eh??? Perhaps you too may be reduced to this! Count your
blessings that you can still breath the breath of life like these folk did
last week.
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:vXFBd.5272$5R....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Mxsmanic
> I agree with that but unless someone lives in a cage they've
> seen the video clips of the tsunami. I see the lesson
> about man's inhumanity to man a bit different than the
> unfortunant outcome of a natural disaster. The only thing
> learned here is that the world needs to get together with a
> warning system of some type.
Tsunami are so rare in the Indian Ocean that it is difficult to justify
a warning system. It wasn't until 1965 that someone thought of setting
one up for the Pacific, and the Pacific has several tsunami a year.
It's important not to overreact.
Jer
> Aguyathome writes:
>
>
>>It's the worst single human tragedy that I know of
>>that has taken place in my 41 years on the planet ...
>
>
> That's the same thing the radio announcer said about the Hindenburg
> crash.
>
Yup, and the Lakehurst pictures of it's aftermath, death strewn around,
still sneaks into my psyche at times.
http://www.vidicom-tv.com/tohiburg.htm
http://www.nlhs.com/tragedy.htm
Incidentally, there was a small part of a Seinfield episode that
referenced that disaster - and caught flack for it. Newman was driving
his mail truck on Kramer's newly painted road, ran over a sewing machine
from Elain's gig in Jerry's car, dragging it's spark trail into Kramer's
fuel spill. Inside the truck cab flames erupt and Newman is heard
screaming, "Oh, the humanity".
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Matt Ion
Whereas you seem to just be trying too hard to be easily offended.
Personally, the first thing I thought when I saw the "rating" thing and
the advertising is that it was just something inherant to the site that
the photographer (or whoever posted the image) used, and that he
probably uses that site on a regular basis, if not exclusively, and so
naturally placed that photo there as well.
Some people just seem to have to FIND things to complain about, I guess...
Jim Redelfs
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Not only that, but that is exactly what we have been accused of doing too
> often in the past. In fact, it is the main reason why Bush Senior pulled out
> when he did in march of 1991........He didn't want to bother with all the
> work that would be involved with replacing Saddam Hussein, so he just walked
> away from it and left him in power.
Bush41 had NOTHING to do with that.
We pulled-out in 1991 because we had accomplished the mission as mandated by
the United Nations: We ejected Iraq's forces from Kuwait.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Stormin' Norman was DYING to go to Baghdad. In my eyes, he's a better general
than was McArthur as he did what he was TOLD to do: Back off.
Admittedly, it's too bad, but dems the facts.
> I was so mad at him that I didn't vote for him in 1992...
Ah, HA!! So YOU'RE to blame for the subsequent administration.
"Thanks" a lot.
:)
JR
Jim Redelfs
Roland Karlsson <roland_do...@bonetmail.com> wrote:
> A thought though - if you cannot withdraw now - when can you do so?
That's a very good question.
I expect that, to a certain degree, we'll be there permanently.
We're still "occupying" Germany and Japan.
JR
William Graham
"Jim Redelfs" <jim.r...@redelfs.com> wrote in message
news:jim.redelfs-61B4...@news.central.cox.net...
I was only 1/2 to blame......I didn't vote for Clinton either....It was the
only presidential election I ever abstained from in my entire life........
William Graham
"Nick Beard" <ni...@superchop.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cr7gf3$655$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Well...In fact this got 10 out of 10 from me cos it portrayed the full
> import of the disaster. As I studied the photo in grate detail, I just
> thought about all those poor folk who maybe that morning were alive and
> well, doing their daily stuff like Hotel work, Playing on the beach,
> running their business, teaching kids etc and now are all piled up with
> the driftwood, waiting to be buried or cremated en-mass with out the
> benifit of a decent funeral (by western standards anyhow). Where do you
> plan to end up by tomorrow night eh??? Perhaps you too may be reduced to
> this! Count your blessings that you can still breath the breath of life
> like these folk did last week.
And tsunami's aren't the only possible disaster that we don't bother to
prepare for. Somewhere out there among the stars there is a member of our
sun's family that is bigger than the New York Island that is on a collision
course with Earth. When we finally see it, it will be too late to do
anything about it. We don't even have any amateur astronomers looking for
it, much less plans for NASA or someone else to deflect it from its ultimate
target. We are much too busy worrying about whether or not gays should
marry..........
William Graham
that there would be so many maniacs who (apparently) preferred Saddam
Hussein to a Constitutional Democracy? - They are religious fanatics who
would rather die than live a reasonable, civilized life. Since there is no
way to give them all psycho-therapy, we have little choice but to kill them
all. If you have a better suggestion, I'm sure Bush & company would love to
hear it.
William Graham
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ojet0545vlgisr2i...@4ax.com...
> Fletis Humplebacker writes:
>
>> I agree with that but unless someone lives in a cage they've
>> seen the video clips of the tsunami. I see the lesson
>> about man's inhumanity to man a bit different than the
>> unfortunant outcome of a natural disaster. The only thing
>> learned here is that the world needs to get together with a
>> warning system of some type.
>
> Tsunami are so rare in the Indian Ocean that it is difficult to justify
> a warning system. It wasn't until 1965 that someone thought of setting
> one up for the Pacific, and the Pacific has several tsunami a year.
> It's important not to overreact.
>
could go to the high ground, and all the dumb rubberneckers could rush down
to the beach and get drowned.....There is no law that says we can't help
Darwin out a little bit.......
Mike Henley
And you, Mr. 21 grams, have one?
This holier-than-thou talk is nonsense. Given my humanistic experience,
I've almost certainly seen more dead and dying people than you have; It
never ceased to cause me pain and leave me upset for a while
afterwards. A figure like "135,000" is horrible enough without seeing
an image, but it remains nonetheless simply that, a figure, impersonal
and abstract, and it gains a further credence of horror when an image
is seen the exemplify that, that the initial 'grasp' of it pales in
comparison.
Mike Henley
This is unfair.
1) you should've said "tourists and natives"; tourists are not the only
humans in that locale.
2) "dumb rubberneckers" is unacceptable. There's no precedent for this
tsunami in the lifetime experience of most people. This is especially
so since, as mark said, the tsuanmi videos showed how deceptive the
waves were; they seemed small and leisurely at a distance, and gained
height as they approached the shore.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> in fact. But it detracts greatly from the tragedy to put it in the
>> context of being "rated" as a good-or-bad photo. You're trying way too
>> hard to to find offending examples of censorship & political correctness
>> that you're missing my point. Context *is* relevant.
>
> Whereas you seem to just be trying too hard to be easily offended.
Matt: I conceded that point in a later post. I'm generally not too easily
offended; something just hit me the wrong way at the wrong time. Most of us
don't have the prior experience to react predictably in the face of such a
tragedy. Somebody simply posted an image in a place they'd normally post
images because that's just what they do. There wasn't any thinking about it
involved, no malice intended etc. But I do wonder what 4081 people were
thinking when they "rated" the photo. To try and become detached enough from
something like that to rate it on the basis of photographic merit... that, I
still have thoughts about.
But as far as I can remember, I've never before been flamed like I have in
this case, and I'm sure I've said & done more stupid things. That's ok, good
to take the flame retardant once in a while.
Kenneth Miller
that has taken place in my 41 years on the planet "
This just not so. although the mainland China's wall of secrecy covers
up many details and China doesn't or didn't ask for outside aid it has
had several earthquakes that dwarf the loss of life in the recent tsumi.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001439.html
1556 Jan. 23, Shaanxi (Shensi) province, China: most deadly earthquake
in history; 830,000 killed.
1976 July 28, Tangshan, China: worst earthquake to hit China in 20th
century; devastated 20 sq mi of city, leaving 242,000 dead (official).
Estimated death toll as high as 655,000
Ken Miller
"Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:cr7km4$j...@library1.airnews.net...
Mike Henley
The Dave© wrote:
> > Cynicor wrote:
> > >> Television needs moving images of reasonable quality. There are
> > only >> so many to go around, so you see the same images over and
> > over. Dead >> people don't move, so showing images of the dead
isn't
> > as exciting as >> showing images of a moving wave.
One thing I like about Europe is how there is less censorship here and
how more at ease the mainstream seems with what America finds
offensive. Most newspapers in the UK had the Janet Jackson still at its
most revealing moment in their review of the year 2004 with an apparent
amusement at how it even became an issue. When I took my American ex to
the cinema to see this film http://www.kino.com/pianoteacher/ She was
surprised that it showed a fully graphic scene of oral sex to a
non-porn audience. When the regulations in the UK prevented the display
of an erect penis on a film for general release, and it meant that a
scene from this film
http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/review/1999/09/17/romance/ would
have had to be cut, they just changed the regulations. I remember
reading a book written by an American academic and he remarked on how
culture-shocked he was when he spent a year in Germany at the sight of
nude or topless women sunbathing in public parks.
William Graham
"Mike Henley" <casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104642397.7...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
of an impending tsunami, (from an Alaska quake) rushed down to the beach to,
"watch it come in."
The situation in the Indian Ocean was definitely different. For one
thing, there was no "high ground" to go to, so I doubt if the warning (if
there had been one) would have done much good......
Mike Henley
Jer wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
> >>From: "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowesteven number here)@cox..net
> >
> >
> >>We were floored. Also floored that nobody else cared to take
Sadddam out,
> >>even though he murdered **countless** thousands.
> >
> >
> > How do you know that? Cause the government told you it was so?
>
> Sure. Doesn't everybody believe the trash that slithers out past the
> Greenbelt?
>
> >
> > If true, then he murdered most of those people while having the
full support of
> > the US. Uncle Rummy and Saddam were best pals until Saddam stepped
a little
> > too close to Bush oil in Kuwait.
>
> I still have the visions of that young Kuwait girl sniffing tissues
and
> testifying before a congressional panel about infant incubators being
> stolen, tossing the babies on the floor. The media was completely
duped
> by this sham and U.S. administration officials not only knew it was a
> sham, but let them get away with it until someone finally had the
guts
> to pull the curtain back revealing the Bush oil deals behind it.
> Everything I've heard from them since that moment is held in the
highest
> scrutiny because they have little credibility with me.
>
I was in Kuwait in 1991 right after the war, and some of my work
involved liasing between international concerns (UN, NGO's such as the
Red Cross, the Kuwaitis etc), during which I regularly dealt one-to-one
with ambassadors and those high in command. Let me put this in the
balance:
1) that incident you mention has indeed been 'media-managed', but I
have personally seen evidence and extensive documentation of torture
and human rights abuses during the occupation. Many images of the
tortured and mutilated bodies were horrific.
2) The oil/defence profiteering through 'creative accounting' you
mention was true; the public funds in the US and Kuwait were truly
ripped off by those who had enough political leverage to profit from
the war. I recall verified accounts of a single head of lettuce for the
military being charged at more than a $100, and an otherwise ordinary
fan, not much different - according to engineers - from that you see
used for ventilation in some public toilettes, being charged at tens of
thousands of dollars (literally!) because some entity was given an
exclusive contract to supply parts for a radar system. The exclusive
contracts given to Cheney's Halliburton these days, for example, is not
that much different. Yes, you're right in saying that Bush and his
administration are corrupt, and that's why I oppose them; they simply
are looters.
>
> >
> > So don't even offer that bullshit as a reason that we are there.
It's total
> > crap. Sudan is the proof.
>
>
> Abso-freaking-lutely
The Dave©
> Yes....I was referring to the people here in the states who, when
> informed of an impending tsunami, (from an Alaska quake) rushed down
> to the beach to, "watch it come in."
There are people who will purposely surf in a hurricane, too... never
to be seen again, quite often.
> The situation in the Indian Ocean was definitely different. For
> one thing, there was no "high ground" to go to, so I doubt if the
> warning (if there had been one) would have done much good......
As someone else mention elsewhere in this topic, tsunamis are not
nearly as common in the Indian Ocean as they are elsewhere in the world
such as the Pacific Ocean. It's just not in their life's experience.
It would be akin to a major earthquake in New York City. It could
happen, but it's not likely, so they don't place a high priority on it.
IIRC, the largest earthquake in recorded American history was in
Missouri, not the west coast as one might reasonably assume.
The Dave©
> One thing I like about Europe is how there is less censorship here and
> how more at ease the mainstream seems with what America finds
> offensive. Most newspapers in the UK had the Janet Jackson still at
> its most revealing moment in their review of the year 2004 with an
> apparent amusement at how it even became an issue. When I took my
> American ex to the cinema to see this film
> http://www.kino.com/pianoteacher/ She was surprised that it showed a
> fully graphic scene of oral sex to a non-porn audience. When the
> regulations in the UK prevented the display of an erect penis on a
> film for general release, and it meant that a scene from this film
> http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/review/1999/09/17/romance/ would
> have had to be cut, they just changed the regulations. I remember
> reading a book written by an American academic and he remarked on how
> culture-shocked he was when he spent a year in Germany at the sight of
> nude or topless women sunbathing in public parks.
Right, but I think it can go both ways, too. I've spent considerable
time in Europe and was amused at some of the things they got themselves
worked up over that Americans wouldn't give a second thought to. It's
just different cultures, I think. Now, to be honest, many of the
European mindsets I preferred over the American, but not all.
Matt Ion
> "It's the worst single human tragedy that I know of
> that has taken place in my 41 years on the planet "
>
> This just not so.
Why not? He DID say specify, "that I know of...". Not a lot of people
know about the following:
> although the mainland China's wall of secrecy covers
> up many details and China doesn't or didn't ask for outside aid it has
> had several earthquakes that dwarf the loss of life in the recent tsumi.
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001439.html
> 1556 Jan. 23, Shaanxi (Shensi) province, China: most deadly earthquake
> in history; 830,000 killed.
> 1976 July 28, Tangshan, China: worst earthquake to hit China in 20th
> century; devastated 20 sq mi of city, leaving 242,000 dead (official).
> Estimated death toll as high as 655,000
Not to mention other earthquake-triggered flooding, particularly in China:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001440.html
1975 Aug. 5, Yangtze River, China: 63 dams failed, killing an estimated
80,000 to 200,000 people from floods and subsequent famine. The Chinese
government never acknowledged the event.
I believe this is the one Discovery Channel rated #1 on their list of
"Ultimate Ten Technological Disasters" (the "technological" part being
the failure of the dams).
Other tsunami and flooding death tolls have also been far higher. From
the same page:
1228 Holland: 100,000 people reputedly drowned by sea flood in Friesland.
1642 China: rebels destroyed Kaifeng seawall; 300,000 drowned.
1931 July–Aug., China: flood along Yangtze River left 3.7 million people
dead from disease, starvation, or drowning.
1970 Nov. 13, East Pakistan: 200,000 killed by cyclone-driven tidal wave
from Bay of Bengal. Over 100,000 missing.
1971 Aug., Hanoi, North Vietnam: heavy rains severely flooded the Red
River Delta, killing 100,000.
Matt Ion
> As someone else mention elsewhere in this topic, tsunamis are not
> nearly as common in the Indian Ocean as they are elsewhere in the world
> such as the Pacific Ocean. It's just not in their life's experience.
> It would be akin to a major earthquake in New York City. It could
> happen, but it's not likely, so they don't place a high priority on it.
Or a tornado coming through downtown Vancouver: it could happen (small
waterspouts are commonly seen over the harbour, and in fact, in the 50s
or 60s, a small twister went through a section of Burnaby, a Vancouver
suburb)... but next to the very real danger of a major quake, the
possibility of a tornado just doesn't rate here. Ergo, we don't have
the tornado-warning systems that are common through the midwestern
states of "Tornado Alley".
> IIRC, the largest earthquake in recorded American history was in
> Missouri, not the west coast as one might reasonably assume.
Largest in the contiguous 48, anyway, and possibly the largest *on land*
in the US. Alaska has seen far larger quakes. The New Madrid, Missouri
quakes (three of them) hit in 1811 and 1812 and rated 8.1, 8.0 and 7.8.
However, those are also the ONLY quakes listed in the top 18 US
quakes, outside of Alaska, California, or Hawaii, and the only ones
outside California and Washington for the Lower 48's top 15, except one
in SC, one in Montana, and one on the Oregon coast.
Alaska's Prince William Sound quake in 1964 was a 9.2, second-strongest
ever recorded in the world, according the USGS. Number 1 was a 9.5 just
off the coast of Chile in 1960; the 3rd and 4th-strongest quakes have
also been in the Alaska area: 9.1 off the Andreanof Islands in Alaska in
1957, and 9.0 (same as the recent Sumatran quake) off the Kamchatka
peninsula in Russia in 1952.
In fact, three of the largest 10 quakes ever recorded have been in and
around Alaska, and 11 of the top 18 in the US. Not a really safe place
to be if you like your terra to be firma.
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/10maps_world.html
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/10maps_usa.html
The Dave©
> > IIRC, the largest earthquake in recorded American history was in
> > Missouri, not the west coast as one might reasonably assume.
>
> Largest in the contiguous 48, anyway,
Right, that's what I meant, but wasn't thinking about Alaska.
> and possibly the largest *on
> land* in the US. Alaska has seen far larger quakes. The New Madrid,
> Missouri quakes (three of them) hit in 1811 and 1812 and rated 8.1,
> 8.0 and 7.8. However, those are also the ONLY quakes listed in the
> top 18 US quakes, outside of Alaska, California, or Hawaii, and the
> only ones outside California and Washington for the Lower 48's top
> 15, except one in SC, one in Montana, and one on the Oregon coast.
>
> Alaska's Prince William Sound quake in 1964 was a 9.2,
> second-strongest ever recorded in the world, according the USGS.
> Number 1 was a 9.5 just off the coast of Chile in 1960; the 3rd and
> 4th-strongest quakes have also been in the Alaska area: 9.1 off the
> Andreanof Islands in Alaska in 1957, and 9.0 (same as the recent
> Sumatran quake) off the Kamchatka peninsula in Russia in 1952.
I seem to rememeber reading about a quake in or near Lisbon Portugul
sometime in the 16th or 17th century that is supposed to be estimated
as the biggest ever known, but can't recall any facts off the top of my
head. But, it's late and I'm going to bed.
Mxsmanic
> The situation in the Indian Ocean was definitely different. For one
> thing, there was no "high ground" to go to, so I doubt if the warning (if
> there had been one) would have done much good......
Going inland would have the same effect as going to higher ground.
Mxsmanic
> One thing I like about Europe is how there is less censorship here and
> how more at ease the mainstream seems with what America finds
> offensive.
There's just as much censorship as in the U.S.--but the things censored
are different. Europeans censor political incorrectness and violence a
lot more than Americans do, but they hardly censor sex at all, whereas
Americans are very severe in their censorship of sex, but they let
violence and political correctness pass.
Mark˛
> William Graham writes:
>
> > The situation in the Indian Ocean was definitely different. For one
> > thing, there was no "high ground" to go to, so I doubt if the warning
(if
> > there had been one) would have done much good......
>
> Going inland would have the same effect as going to higher ground.
Not necessarily.
Some locations have immediate/close access to high ground...where moving
only 50 yards would bring safety.
Other location (like Phuket) didn't have immediate high ground, one had to
travel relatively far inland to escape...certainly farther than elderly
walking folk, or toddlers were prepared to travel by foot.
Mxsmanic
> Other location (like Phuket) didn't have immediate high ground, one had to
> travel relatively far inland to escape...certainly farther than elderly
> walking folk, or toddlers were prepared to travel by foot.
A few hundred metres would do, depending on the runup of the tsunami.
It never hurts to try.