I have this problem concerning this disaster. This may be the greatest natural disaster when it's all said and done, worse than the Typhoons of Bangladesh. 100,000+...that's staggering, it really is horrible.

But for some reason, I don't think I'm emotionally effected to the extent that I should be. I've been trying to figure out why.

I keep comparing this to what I view as the two most tragic disasters of our time. 9-11, and the tragedy in Beslan. Now 9-11 basically just made incredibly sad. Not in a depressed sort of way, but in an almost I'm a Marine who just wants to cry sort of way. I found it monstrous, but I guess I wasn't angered.

With Beslan, I was outraged. In fact, I have never in all my life been so emotionally effected by any global event EVER. I felt so bad, and so angry about what happened that was more than willing to pack my bags and go help those people in any way shape or form.

Now we have this enormous tragedy. We're looking at 100,000 people dead. In comparison, what took place in New York and Beslan is next to nothing. So why am I not so sad? And I ask of all of you, are you as emotionally effected by this disaster as you were on 9-11, or back when the events of Beslan occured? Because I don't most anybody is. To me it seems more like, "100,000 people are dead. Wow. Hey, what's for supper tonight?"

I think my problem has multiple roots.

#1: This is a natural disaster. I think the reaction of humans doing harm to one another triggered my reactions in 9-11 and Beslan, this disaster is natural.

#2: 9-11 was close, it really hit home. Asia is on the other side of the earth, so we have very little connection to it.

#3: We all saw 9-11 as it happened. Horrifying images that we'll never forget. Whereas we have very little video from the actual event in Asia, so we feel less connected. What's more dramatic, pictures of people jumping from 100 stories up to their death to avoid suffering? Or images of a wave blowing through a hotel?

#4: Then there is the Stalinist mentality. Beslan, 233 people dead is a tragedy. 100,000 dead...just a statistic.

Am I the only one like this?

My turn:

1. I was not the least bit shocked by 9/11. Angry at the needless loss of lives? sure. That night when I saw the second plane hit, the first thing that came into my head was- "so now it's America's turn". All in all, it had very little emotion effect on me.

2. On Beslan... I understood that the people who committed that tragedy were themselves fucked over by the Russians in a major way. So again, no. The common theme for me is that human folly just doesn't shock me all that much.

3. To the tsunami. I was walking around on the beaches on Thailand not much more than a month ago. I can remember what the place looked like, and it looked nothing like the images that have been coming in on tv. This time the tragedy was in my own backyard.

I've mostly disagreed with your viewpoints, and it's no different this time. This was the one that, excuse the pun, really hit home.

Everything is a matter of perspective.

--PunkDavid (take a position, dammit! )

PD, I feel your pain.

Where's that damn middle finger emoticon?

--PunkDavid (we really do need one of those)

You wouldn't dare!!!!

[insensitivity shield]

At least Petra's okay.

[/insensitivity shield]

Is she the swimsuit model? She broke her hip you know. Not so sexy in the body cast.

--PunkDavid

This is a good post and you made some good points but I think this is actually perhaps a root of your American/capitalist bias.

What may I ask, do you think about the people killed, in the world in the last say, 50 years, by America?? Civilians?

Who gives a shit if curries and gooks die. They're just statistics.

And they take our university places and jobs...

oh and by the way... in case I haven't mentioned... I am a Marine...

Highly relevant point. Y'all should know. And respect.

Hurray for tolerance!

maybe this forum isnt all that rad...

yea, forgot to include the

Of course I think about the loss of innocent life. But...when you take into account say...innocent killed in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, GWII...the number of innocent killed without US involvement would be astronomically higher. So although I feel a great deal of pain for these people and what they suffer, I guess you could say I take comfort in knowing that many many more peoples lives have been saved through our actions. When you look at the loss of life on 9-11 and Beslan, that was just pointless and merciless violence unleashed specifically on the innocent. And again...this is a natural disaster, mother nature.

I am never as shocked by natural disasters as I am by human-caused tragedies. Even hurricanes in Florida, well shit, that's where hurricanes make landfall. I HOPE everyone is alright, and it is saddening of course, but it doesn't surprise or shock me in the least when a lot of people die or become homeless.

Yes, it is a natural disaster and ultimately I think people killing people is definitely more horrifying. I would bet if you asked peasants or civilians in those countries in which we intervened in the last 60 years, Japan (Hiroshima/Nagasaki), Vietnam (3 Million), El Salvador, Iran, Iraq, that would see things a bit differently than you. You say 9/11 was horrifying because 3000 people were killed, but how many innocents have been killed because of our "collateral damage?" Then you try to justify it by saying its ultimately better...that is like saying war and violence are basically okay.

As far as the disaster is concerned, I find it very distressing, because things like this simply do NOT happen in western, civilized countries, but only in the third world. At least not massive losses of life. I think tens of thousands of people dying because of tidal waves and inadequate warning systems is hard to rationalize against 3000 killed in a terrorist attack. I think you need to look more closely at the situation, that's all.

"They" take our jobs and universities because "they" work their asses off. Your comment about curries and gooks is a real shitty remark.

wait, they were pointless? Why is there only a point to the war for the side you want to win? Do you not think the Chechens have a legitimate beef with Russia? That maybe, just maybe they are sick of their own civilians getting killed in brutal attacks by the Russian Army?

Also, why do you say the number of innocent killed in those previous wars would have been higher without U.S. involvement? And even if that is true, does it make it any more moral what the Allied Powers did to some cities in WWII? Any easier to take?

Yeah, man, the Vietnamese would have been much better off if we had let them do what they want and not killed 3-5 million of them.