Big quake in Iran

[DrJones]

Some of you probably heard about the earthquake (http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4047680) that hit Iran earlier today. Then again, I bet many of you haven't. I'd also wager that no one was glued to their tv set over it.

Well... just to put things in perspective. So far they are saying 20,000 people may have died in that quake. With 10s of thousands more injured. Everyone agrees that this is tragic, but I doubt we will see years of mourning over it. It won't have a global impact on the way things are done. It won't change the opinions of millions of people and affect everyones lives. Not like our little thing that happened a few years ago, in which 2,752 died.

[Brian]

Ok, but this was a NATURAL DISASTER which is to be expected. Sure it is tragic, but hardly something to compare to 9/11. How would it have a global impact on the way things are done? We have no way to predict such events "yet" although the research is being done. At any rate my thoughts go out to the families effected by this. I would never wish such a tragedy on anyone.

[DrJones]

Ok, but this was a NATURAL DISASTER which is to be expected. Sure it is tragic, but hardly something to compare to 9/11. How would it have a global impact on the way things are done? We have no way to predict such events "yet" although the research is being done. At any rate my thoughts go out to the families effected by this. I would never wish such a tragedy on anyone.

Yes one is a natural disaster, and the other was an act of terrorism. However, to me the source isn't that important. It's the people that matter. While we might not of been able to predict it, that doesn't mean that the tragedy couldn't of been prevented.

2003 December 22 19:15:56 UTC- Magnitude 6.5 - CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
Two people killed and about 40 buildings collapsed or severely damaged

2003 December 26 01:56:52 UTC- Magnitude 6.5 - SOUTHEASTERN IRAN
much much more damage

Yes those aren't to events you can relate to eachother 100%, there are lots of other variables (not sure how populated the quake in Cali was). But still, I think you can imply some conclusions from that.

I think the point that I was trying to make was more that people (I would argue) care more about the 2752 americans that died, rather than the thousands of more Iranians that did today. Not looking at what the cause was, most Americans wouldn't see this event nearly as tragic as 9/11 (just looking at the number of deaths, not the cause).

[Brian]

I can see your point. The building codes here in america are much more up to date so it would be expected that more people would die from a quake in a country like that. I know you are simply comparing the sheer numbers here, but the two events still differ in the way they touched our lives. I have never been to Iran, but I can see everyday how the events of 9/11 effected my life. I think I understand the point you are trying to get across, but at the same time people tend to take to heart events which are closer to their home. I don't even think a huge quake in California would change our lives as much as 9/11 did though. An earthquake is expected where as terrorism is not.

[Brian]

Also the december 22nd quake in california happened in a fairly unpopulated area from what I understand from my friend here at work that has family in the general area.

[DrJones]

Also the december 22nd quake in california happened in a fairly unpopulated area from what I understand from my friend here at work that has family in the general area.

I don't know the details but I'd guess this same. Still I think everyone would agree that a quake of that magnitude in a part of cali with the same population density (200,000 I believe) wouldn't hit nearly as hard. Even if it was a stronger quake. There could also be issues with stuff like how far the epicenter was underground, and what kind of rock is dominant where the quake occured (did read reports that the one in Cali raised some of the mountains up a little, probably a few cm or something).

I know that a lot of people can approach this in a smart way, but I'm more pissed about all the Americans (not necassarily on this board, think more redneck) who could care less if this many Iranians died. Or would even be happy about it because those 'terrorists' 'deserve it' and who say 'I hope Osama is one of them.' Maybe I just need to find a country with people who are a little more educated than around here.

What really pisses me off is the two guys on the radio that said Racial profiling is ok, and talk about it like it's perfectly ok. He was talking about he got really pissed because he was at an airport with two guys in front of him that looked 'very middle eastern.' They searched him in the random(!) checks and he got very very pissed. He asked them if they knew who he was, and then said they shouldn't of searched him because he's a radio personel and an exmarine, and they should of searched the guys infront of him because they 'look middle eastern'.......... :mad:

[LeonZ]

i survived a 7-point earthquake when i was 8 in georgia. it was very scary but the damage was not as extreme as it usually is for massive earthquakes in caucasus area.

[ryanman]

Why was the word "terrorism" even brought up in this thread? It's NATURAL.

[DrJones]

Why was the word "terrorism" even brought up in this thread? It's NATURAL.

did you read the thread? I think it's self explanitory

[Bedlam]

did you read the thread? I think it's self explanitory

I think its our media that plays things out for the majority of the population..you see it all the time.

1) a plane crashes...full of passengers...all 300 people die. No Americans ion board.. <--may hear about it briefly on the evening news, or not at all.

2) another plane crashes..also full of passengers, but HALF of them are american citizens!!! Its suddenly an international tragedy..and the entire airline industry is under review.

I think our view on thing is a little jilted...gotta love our media-centric culture.

-Bedlam

[DrJones]

slightly off topic, but since you brought up the media, here is a nice quote from a book I am reading.


The world is also a safe place. While the dangers in the industrialized world are real, they are the exceptions. This can sometimes be hard to remember in our sensationalist age - newspapers sell better with the headline "Three Shot Dead in Random Act of Violence" than "Two Hundred and Seventy Million Americans have Uneventful Day"-but it is true. Almost everyone walks the streets every day without getting mugged. Almost no one dies by random gunfire, gets swindled by flim-flam men, or returns home to crazed marauders. Most businesses are not the victims of armed robbery, rogue bank managers, or workplace violence. Less than one percent of eBay transactions- unmediated long distance deals between strangers- result in any sort of complaint. People are, on the whole, honest; they generally adhere to an implicit social contract. The general lawfulness in our society is high; that's why it works so well.

(I realize that the previous paragraph is a gross oversimplification of a complex world. I am writing this book in the United States at the turn of the millenium. I am not writing it in Sarajevo, Hebron, or Rangoon. I have no expierences that can speak to what it is like to live in such a place. My personal expectations of safety come from living in a stable democracy. The book is about security from the point of view of the industrialized world, not the world torn apart by war, suppressed by secret police, or controlled by criminal syndicates. This book is about the relatively minor threats in a society where the major threats have been dealt with.)


That is from a book called Secrets and Lies, and is about security in relation to the digital world (internet). He has a new one that came out in March, that is about security in general. I can't wait to read it. It talks about stuff such as, does having pilots keep guns in the cockpit make us more or less safe. Anyone who knows my posts know that I always like to refer to the experts, and this guy is by far one of the top experts on security.

[exciv2000]

I don't read or watch the news. I'm media adverse you could say. I don't put up with their "frightening" stories.

[-=[Juztin]=-]

I have no worthless tv to be glued to in the first place, but cause of death magnitutes sympathy in general. A person is more likely to be mourned if they were say a victim via homicide as opposed to a tree falling on them, it's just nature, and the properties of social-interaction upon a disperse group. Of course if it was your brother/sister that died, then that's a totally different story because your directly affected giving you a very sentimental value. A death is a death and the loss of a irreplaceable soul, no way around that depending on perspective. My sympathies to the families affected by the quake, may the deceased find some peace amongst what happened to them.

[B20civic]

interesting.

[-=[Juztin]=-]

I also think that in regards to americans always getting presidence in the news is simply because more likely than not, the media from which the news was accessed was through american owned sources regardless if it was through monetary, contractual, or loyalties. It's a no-brainer who get's priority. It's not the americans faults that our networks reach, and influence / span across the globe along with the citizens. Every other nation has that opportunity but has not taken the steps to do so. That comes along with being the "leading" power, get over it. If someone is not happy with it, they can always gain citizen ship in another nation and make steps to imporove those nations situations. I'm usually not vibrantly patriotic, but I do know a good case of freedom / american dream in which case the choices, sacrifices, monopolies (let's not lie), etc. have got us where we are now at in which case we are enjoying the spoils of it all.