Category: Let's talk
I know this is very short notice, as the three minute silence across Europe is due to take place today, wednesday fifth january 2005, but my question is this. Some ppl have said that a three minute silence is a good thing as it shows support for the vixtims of the tsunami. Others have said that the three minute silence is a stunt as it appears to give more weight to the deaths of 150000 ppl than to the millions who died in conflicts across the world, for whom we hold a two minute silence every year. What do you think? While the deaths of 150000 ppl is tradgic and needs to be aknowledged as such, is a three minute silence too much? I must add here that I have no opinion either way, I'm just reporting what other ppl have been saying and asking for your thoughts.
I don't think the 3-minute silence will be an annual occurance so, as such, over a period of more than 1 year it will, in fact, become continuously less statistically significant compared to the war victim silence. I find natural disasters actually even more tragic than wars, we only have ourselves to blame for killing one another (of course sadly most of the people who die have nothing to do with the conflict, but broadly speaking this statement is true) but when faced with the force of nature there's not much we can do and at least such disasters seem to bring us together as a global community. And just think about the 1 or 2 minute silence etc we have for the World Trade Center victims. They were only 3000, we're expecting up to 200000 victims of the earth quakes, the WTC victims should get at most 10 seconds since they're 1.5% of those who died in the earth quakes, ok, since America is such a special country, home of the free etc, we can say the life of an American is worth 10 other lives (no, certainly not my personal opinion but juding by the media it sure feels like it sometimes) .. even then we should not justify more than 30 ot 40 seconds at most, really less actually , no offense to anyone it's just funny to see how different disasters get different coverage.
cheers
-B
we didn't observe the silence as we have shed copious tears for those lost in this disaster I wasnt as upset by 9/11 as by this because of the children involved their plight never fails to upset me so I thought trhe 3 minute silence was a stunt and nothing more and some may see this as cruel, but I think something like that is pointless we haven't forgotten the dead, or those left to suffer, they haunt us with every news report so why do we need a 3 minute silence to remember them.
I think a moment of silence is ok. But 3 minutes? Now I can understand the moment of silence to remember the dead and all. But for a long period of time?
I think each person should be able to remember those who have passed away in whatever way they wish.
I think a three minute silence is nice, and gets people thinking, but, like Goblin said, we're already thinking about them. SO I think it's good and bad, personally.
Caitlin
Well I don't think it's bad as such, but I think it implies we dont' think about them enough? I dunno. Mostly, I'm all for it. Maybe we could have one on the Zone, if enough interest is arroused?
Caitlin
I was on a train when that silence occured and you'd have never know if you had no media communication. I think three minutes was a bit long and my mind was wondering a bit. Plus there were lenty of silences at Footy matches. There was a long silence also after September 11th in 2001 in the UK.