[Milan]

I wrote this and I wasn't sure if I should post it but this thought occurred to me last night when I was watching the news broadcast. If this offends anyone I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to belittle the event as it's f**cking catastrophic - I just want to put things into perspective in terms of media coverage:

Sad news today for Londoners. I hope no one on this forum or there family were injured. Last night six out of the seven free to air channels started a live up to the minute broadcast of the carnage. The thing that got me was how the media puts some much emphasis on events that happen to the richer western countries, as if the value of a human life here in the first world is more important than our poorer third world fellows. The last I heard was that 37 perished and about 700 are injured. A terrible loss and an awful way to pass in an act of disgusting violence. But the loss was no where near as bad as the Rwanda genocide massacre where 800 000 people died back in 1994. I remember watching the news and was gob smacked at he human loss but what really got me was the total news time spent on the story - would not have exceeded five minutes. Soon after they were back to the Charles and Dianna affairs which was given almost as much time! I believe every life is precious and it's sad to think that we who were blessed to have been born in a rich and free country don't take notice of the continuous human suffering that's happening around the world. I suppose Live8 is a good start.

 

[person3]

Intersting point. Never thought of it that way...

 

[mcsiegs]

If your post offends anybody, then that is wrong. It was tastefully written, thought provoking, and definitely true.

In the news, wealthier people rate higher in coverage.

If 50 homeless people died in a fire in an abandoned house, it would get 5 minutes on the news, if that. If Jessica Simpson gets caught cheating, it would get round the clock coverage. A different analogy, I know, but the same principle.

Sick, sad world at times.

 

[Martinelv]

Ah yes - the backlash. Whenever a 'few' rich westerners are murdered we are immediately reminded of the trillions of people suffering around the world, so we should keep it in perspective, yeah ? So no, it's not particually offensive, but it's highly inappropriate, if you ask me.

I don't think I'd better say anymore. I was waiting for this and, if you'll excuse me, I'm going outside to scream in rage.

 

[Milan]

The perspective was mainly interms of media coverage. But if people find this an inapriopriate post I shall galdly delete it (I was unsure of posting it).

 

[mcsiegs]

Martin - I think (and could be wrong) what Milan was trying to say is that innocent people die all the time, and it is wrong at all levels. It's just different the way the media covers it. I think it was more of an analysis on popular media.

Peace Martin - hope you are feeling well, my man.

 

[Monkeydust]

I agree with Milan, don't think that was tasteless at all.

It's don't think it's so much a matter of "perspective"; it's just the fact that no one life should necessarily mean more than another. We might have more in common with "fellow Westerners". But that does not mean that they're somehow "worth more".

But, since the dust hasn't even settled yet I think we should still keep our minds on the London incident for now.

 

[Martinelv]

Yes, you're absolutely right. But in that case, and keeping in mind that suffering is relative, everytime we come on here compaining about our problems, we should post a million line disclaimer because there are people who are far worse off than us.

 

[Monkeydust]

Alright, point taken. (Dislaimer.)

 

[g-funk]

Suffering is relative - I totally agree, however when I turned on the radio and they have done a medley of Tony Blair quotes and eye witness accounts to a Coldplay track, I found it inappropriate. The media can take it too far, it doesn't need dramatizing any more than it already is. I have to say though, the media these past few days in Britain has been much more low key than I would have expected. I think its part of showing those f*ckers that the world doesn't stop spinning for them.

 

[Lilymoonchild]

Did y'all know that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of the war? I'm not saying this as an arguement against war, but a life is a life, and if 100,000 British or American civilians had died in this war, you can bet the media would be freaking out.
When something like the London incident happens, it just makes me thankful that I don't hear about things like that happening in my neighborhood EVERY DAY, as people in many parts of the world do.

And as a side note, I also thought the subject was very tastefully brought up, and if someone is offended, check out the name of the forum

 

[Martinelv]

I'd like to try and understand what point you are trying to make LillyMoonChild.....is it that's it's OK to bomb people on the bus and underground just because there have been thousands of equally innocent Iraqi/Palestinian/Sudanese killed...? Are these murders justified ?

 

[Guest]

"Did y'all know that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of the war?"

Not even the most anti-war of the anti-war folks give the figure you cite:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

 

[Guest]

Yeah, but of course it's all justified because Dick Cheney sais it's okay and god knows we all want to make him and his rich oil friends happy. At one point I called myself a supporter of this war, but have come to realize it's a double edged sword. People are going to get slaughtered in that country whether they are under the reign of Saddamn or Americans. There is no winning. Killing is just sport in that country, and we are only helping to add to the cause.

 

[Axel19]

totally agree, however when I turned on the radio and they have done a medley of Tony Blair quotes and eye witness accounts to a Coldplay track

Oh goog Lord, they did that!!?!?!?!?

I think it's geo-psychology (just made that up). Naturally one is going to feel pitty for those closest to home, those with whom they share the same city, the same public transport. That is why these bombings affected me as they did. I still can't quite comprehend that there are rotting pieces of people lying deep underground on the Piccadily line. The f*cking Piccadily line, the one that goes to Heathrow and back. The one I've had to use day in day out. How did it transform so dramatically?
When I hear about suicide bombings in the Middle East, I can't really relate. When I see an old lady running into the street hysterically screaming about the deaths of her entire family, it just seems so different to what I know, I have difficulty empathising. Yet when I see some young Londoner, probably a student and probably coming from a very similar background to me, holding back tears because he can't get through to his dad, who probably had his head blown off on that bus, I relate. He will be hailed as a hero by everyone that knows him, and rightly so. But the old lady will be forgotten like every other tragic story in the third world.
Humans are stil territorial to a great extent. We still have an affinity with those closest to home. I defy anyone to be more affected by 100,000 deaths in Iraq, than a single death in the family.
As long as we do feel compasion for others, that's what really matters.
I've yet to meet a Londoner who didn't care about the bombings, and if I do I will probably get very angry. I'm sure there are some selfish, spoilt brats out there who were more annoyed at being unable to get to Harrods that day than anything else. It's usually the young ones who are indifferent to such things.

 

[Martinelv]

Amen to that, Axel19 !! It really hacks me off when people crawl out of the woodwork whenever there is a 'minor' tragedy, and spit and scowl about how so-and-so-and-so-and-so are far worse off. Yes, and the point being ?

a medley of Tony Blair quotes and eye witness accounts to a Coldplay track, I found it inappropriate

Eeek, that is bad. But I guess that kind of puerile pandering to quasi-romanic tragic inclinations has to be expected from our media nowadays....I blame Princess Di. She started it all off.

 

[Lilymoonchild]

I'd like to try and understand what point you are trying to make LillyMoonChild.....is it that's it's OK to bomb people on the bus and underground just because there have been thousands of equally innocent Iraqi/Palestinian/Sudanese killed...? Are these murders justified ?

My point is simply that a life is a life, and whether that life is extinguished on the London underground or in Iraq, it's still a life. And the loss of life, and in particular the apparent lack of concern for the loss of that life by the media, is disturbing to me...

 

[Lilymoonchild]

"Did y'all know that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of the war?"

Not even the most anti-war of the anti-war folks give the figure you cite:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

http://www.jhsph.edu/PublicHealthNews/P ... _Iraq.html

The researchers compared the mortality rate among civilians in Iraq during the 14.6 months prior to the March 2003 invasion with the 17.8 month period following the invasion. The sample group reported 46 deaths prior to the March 2003 and 142 deaths following the invasion. The results were calculated twice, both with and without information from the city of Falluja. The researchers felt the excessive violence from combat in Falluja could skew the overall mortality rates. Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.

Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.
The Iraq Body Count, a respected database run by a group of academics and peace activists, has put the number of reported civilian deaths at between 14,000-16,000.
The Lancet published research by scientists from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the US city of Baltimore.
They gathered data on births and deaths since January 2002 from 33 clusters of 30 households each across Iraq.
They found the relative risk, the risk of deaths from any cause, was two-and-a-half times higher for Iraqi civilians after the 2003 invasion than in the preceding 15 months.
Before the invasion, most people died as a result of heart attack, stroke and chronic illness, the report says, whereas after the invasion, "violence was the primary cause of death".
Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children.
Dr Les Roberts, who led the study, said: "Making conservative assumptions we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/28/news/toll.html

PARIS More than 100,000 civilians have probably died in Iraq as direct or indirect consequences of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

These are all estimates and guesses, as there is no official death count of civilians. It also counts deaths by coalition forces, but this is because the level of those has risen 85% since the invasion. I'm not saying US and allied soldiers are going in and killing people's children, I am simply saying that the war is killing a lot more people than we've been led to believe, and I have never heard a convincing reason for us to be there in the first place.

 

[Sojourner]

"These are all estimates and guesses, as there is no official death count of civilians. It also counts deaths by coalition forces, but this is because the level of those has risen 85% since the invasion. I'm not saying US and allied soldiers are going in and killing people's children, I am simply saying that the war is killing a lot more people than we've been led to believe, and I have never heard a convincing reason for us to be there in the first place."

--------

Putting a stop to the killing of MILLIONS by Saddam Hussein sounds like a good reason to me! Yes, MILLIONS.

 

[Lilymoonchild]

But then why didn't we put a stop to the killing of MILLIONS in Rwanda? And the thousands still dying in the Congo? Why is Iraq our business to stop and Rwanda wasn't?