"..these people.."??

I hope that your ivory tower provides the protection against all that the elements - and life - could throw at you.

This isn't about who did what when, it's about what we should be doing now.

Robes, do you always jump the gun on things?

It is much too early to say for sure if the warning was not given due to economic considerations. The whole BBC story was based on a single source that was not even named. Could be a disguntled employee or somebody with an axe to grind maybe a janitor for all we know.

Quite frankly, I don't know how a warning would have that big an economic impact anyway. It was in the middle of the night and no flights would be stopped due to it. The thing would be all over in a couple of hours if it were a false alarm.

Read the other link. The government has been back-burnering the project for 5 years or more.

I understand the point about not flaunting your own good fortune in the face of someone else's tragedy.

But really, are we any better than those tourists? Here we sit in our warm, comfy homes, sipping a glass of wine, passing judgement on others half way round the world, planning our next luxury, while millions are suffering. And not just this week... every day of every month of the year.

As Sue said earlier, we all deal with our own personal tragedies in our own way. Then we compartmentalize and move on. We would be morose constantly if we felt so deeply every horrific event on earth. Be grateful when a tragedy is not your own personal experience. Try to do what you can to help others. And don't judge others' reactions and responses. Who knows what they have been through...

WANT MORE?

Yes!

(a) What form would that warning have taken? Would it have been in a form that reached tourists' ears? Who watches TV and listens to local radio in a country where the large majority of broadcasts are in the local language?

Even if it had been in the shape of a siren blast, what tourist would have been omniscient enough to read it as a tsunami warning? And if a local had picked it up, how does he then go about alerting 10000 tourists scattered over a target area the size of New Hampshire?

(b) Given that an effective warning could have been issued, how would you have pinpointed the natural phenomenon to be warned about, and the areas at most risk, given that what was registered by the met office was an earthquake near Sumatra?

(c) Initial readings given out by our Australian bureau were of the order of Richter 6.0 or even less, which is about enough to knock a cup off the shelf. No wonder the Thai office was hesitant to dramatise the situation and scare tourists and the local population needlessly.

(d) Which other countries in the region were able to get the message out in time to save anybody? None, because it couldn't be done.

I think you owe the Thai people an apology on this one.

Harzer

Hey Rotsberry:

I am very embarrased to be posting in this message board community with somebody of your kind that blatantly states the "these people" of Thailand cares more about money than other people's well being.

Let me understand: are you rationalizing not building a warning network, or not using it? You seem to be saying that the governments are blameless for not having a system, because the people can't be warned anyway. That's ridiculous.

Here's more:

<b>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20041227-0719-quake-warningsystem.html</b>

Instead of attacking one another let's pray, give funds.
A good message from the Delai Lama for this forum:
our prime purpose in this life is to help others.
and if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them.

Oh, really, stknicks? Exactly what part of <b>&quot;Thailand’s Meteorological Department may have delayed sounding a tidal wave warning for fear it could damage the country’s lucrative tourism industry, officials indicated today&quot;</b> is eluding your comprehension?

My factual comprehension is pretty near A1. What is beyond my comprehension is your obtuse arrogant inability to show compassion for what has happened. Now is NOT the right time to quibble about who was right or wrong.

At the risk of sounding insensitive (and I don't think I am) this idea that all fun should stop in honor of those killed just doesn't make much sense to me. People die every die -- all right not as many, but each death is just as important to someone as all those deaths were to others. Would some of you make all schools close their playgrounds when a funeral procession passes by because kids shouldn't be having fun when &quot;mourning&quot; is going on? Should golf courses be forbidden to be built next to a cemetery out of honoring the grief stricken?

How many days, weeks, or months after a major plane crash should all ballgames, theatre events, dances, parties and celebrations be cancelled because it isn't right to have fun after so much death has taken place? Should celebrations only be stopped when 100 or more people have been killed in a single incident or should that number be 1000, or maybe just when it is over a million. And while we are at it, what distance should these activities be stopped. They shouldn't happen within 1 mile of the scene or maybe 100 miles or maybe all activities should be moved to exactly 347 miles from the scene of the destruction or death? Who sets these limits and numbers -- I'm confused. If my child or brother were killed in an accident of any kind I'd be horrified, but I wouldn't get upset because other people go on with their lives -- and I wouldn't be any more upset if his death was a single tragedy or he was one of 50,000. It really wouldn't make any difference to me.

I'm sorry to say this but life goes on, there are ways to understand death and destruction without other people giving up all sense of fun, vacation, or otherwise because of tragedy that has befallen others. Some people are just as comfortable sitting in front of their TV's drinking beer and watching a ballgame, but can feel proud that they aren't sunning on a beach in Phuket. While others may feel even closer to the victims as they do so, and feel a oneness with the people who's lives have been altered forever. Who's to say one is right and the other is wrong? I personally don't see why sitting in New York watching a ball drop in Times Square after the tsunami is being any more &quot;sensitive&quot; to the tragedy than going to a beach resort near the scene of the tragedy and sunning on a beach and spending money to boost the local economy. Of course I know some of you will totally disagree with that assessment and that's your right, the same as it's my right to believe as I do.

When you resort to name-calling, you've lost the debate.

Patrick: I do agree with you. Life goes on.

And let's remember that this is bigger, no matter what, than 9/11, and we need to get off our pedestals and remember what's important.

People.

Patrick, you make a excellent point. Life has to go on, and there aren't any &quot;sensitivity rules&quot; that govern the appropriateness of our feelings depending on how far away, how long after, or how many victims of a catastrophe there are.

And our judgment of whether a government is doing right by its people (or visitors to its country) shouldn't be clouded by the magnitude of any tragedy that might have befallen them. In my opinion, the withholding <u>for profit</u> of the warning that might have spared 100,000 lives is nothing short of criminal negligence.

StKnicks, if you can't abide by Fodors' requirement to maintain a civil tone I suggest you cease posting childish insults.

Now, on a positive note, a humbling story in today's &quot;Sydney Morning Herald&quot; concerning 20-year-old Melbourne medical student Jessie Mulder and her best friend Ineka Dane. Both girls were holidaying on Phuket a week ago and are now working in a makeshift morgue in Krabi, identifying the dead and comforting the survivors. The accompanying photo shows Jessie hugging the boyfriend of a Swiss woman whose body she's just identified. Her comment: &quot;We knew we had to stay and help. You can't go sightseeing, looking at Buddhas in northern Thailand when you see something like this.&quot;

Should have referenced the story mentioned in my last post - it's at www.smh.com.au

Sorry ... I misspelt Jessie's surname, it's Maulder.

I guess my reading abilities have dwindled. I've read through the links mentioned above and I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that indicates anyone purposely didn't sound an alarm because of potential profit. In fact, basically all I see is that there is NO real warning system in place and a lack of understanding about how to either predict or warn about these things.

The accusation is much like the popular belief, &quot;well, the US government could wipe out AIDS and cancer if they spent the money and really wanted to do it&quot; -- that's a lot different than saying &quot;the US government deliberately lets thousands die because they purposely put off preventing these dreadful diseases to boost profits to the medical industry&quot;.

Yes, Patrick, but the <u>reason</u> there is no system in place is the same reason the information the government <i>did</i> have last Sunday wasn't disseminated: they feared it would damage trade.

That's sacrificing lives for profit.

&quot;. . .is the same reason the information the government did have last Sunday wasn't disseminated: they feared it would damage trade.&quot;

This is the part of your statement I can't find any reliable back up or proof for. Sorry. It remains to me a totally unjustified statement.

Who was this person or people who sat in a room and said, &quot;we could send out a warning that thousands of people are about to be killed but it would hurt our profits, so let's not tell anyone.&quot; Huh? Is that really what you're saying? If so tell us who these people are who knew it was about to happen and who deliberately decided not to warn anyone because of the loss of revenue. Are you the only person in the world who knows who they are?