Posted on 12/30/2004 12:21:45 PM PST by smag499
My bad - was looking at commas, not zeroes, I guess.
I know what you're saying. But the article also says the current estimates are "way below reality", which doesn't sound like 20,000 either....
I guess it's pointless to speculate. It is what it is. It will probably be weeks before an accurate assessment is made....
I did not know that tsunamis discriminated against people according to income. And if they did, you would think it would be the rich who's homes and playgrounds line the shores, which they would target.
Here's the title of the original article
'Is India underestimating its tsunami dead?'
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/975541.cms
It clearly mentions the number at being 100,000(not a million).It was filed at 11.45am Indian time(That's about last midnight for you folks) & those estimates have been surpassed now.A lot of aerial surveys of the Andamans have been done during this time frame-the death toll there seems to be around 5,500.
In short,the title of this thread has been spiced up.
my God. a million people? Wow.
If you want a better understanding-go to the URL & check the time the report was filed.It was done before noon Indian time.That is late last night for Americans.The details in it correspond to the facts now(toll has crossed 100,000).
100,000 or 1,000,000, it's still a frightful number. It seems only a few days ago the number was at 3,000. Only God will know the final toll.
refer my previous post.The title of this thread has been intentionally or accidently altered.
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying that.
Actually I think the number is already over 100,000...at least according to Drudge.
I'd like to know why it is that we come up with $35 million in aid but our troops go without necessary supplies?
Not that I ming helping in a crisis, mind you, I do think that any nation that can help should, but I'd still like to know why our trrops are going without.
some of the frightening pictures that are cropping up make this all too possible.
Actually, the article you posted still has a typo in it: "1,00,000"
So it doesn't exactly say 100,000 either. I would hazard to guess that it's easier to have one less zero in there than it is to add a comma where it doesn't belong...
Even 100k is pretty bad. But the news bimbos on the MSM channels in their rush to gush rail to recognize that this no where near the worst natural disasters. In the 1970s alone
the worst was half a million.
500,000 1970 Typhoon / Flood Bangladesh
http://www.geocities.com/Axiom43/disasters.html
OK, Ok, Check my thread: I asked:
So just how high will this go, and how credible will the numbers be?
So is this article saying 100,000 or 1,000,000?
I should have left the 1,000,000 out even though I THINK that is what they meant.
Probably supposed to be 100,000 since a million would be too large a jump.
Based on the Lancets estimate of 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths based on a sample of 63 confirmed deaths, the final estimate will be whatever number most fits the political objectives of the MSM.
Actually that's not an error.In India,we don't use hundred thousands or million,billion etc.100,000 is written as 1,00,000-this figure is called a lakh,which is a very common Indian unit,so it's use on an Indian website.
So the death toll now(around 125,000) would be written in Indian papers & websites as one lakh twenty five thousand.Hope I've clarified it.
...or increase aid. Prayers for the affected.
It is Saying 1 LAKH which is the Indian unit for a 100,000.
There is no typo error in the article.It was published for Indian readers who are more familiar with hearing about lakhs & not hundred thousands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.