It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

People refusing to leave the devastation. Should the govt be blamed for that as well?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
news.yahoo.com...


NEW ORLEANS — Search teams pressing to evacuate the living and find the dead after a full week under the high-water sway of Hurricane Katrina found their efforts complicated Monday by the refusal of hundreds of residents to leave the paralyzed city.

A senior New Orleans police official said Monday that some 10,000 inhabitants remained in the city, hidden inside flooded residences, apartments and housing projects, surviving on foraged scraps and food drops by the military. Searchers have been frustrated by hundreds of holdouts who have refused to leave their homes, fearing possessions will be pillaged, pets will die and their way of life will be erased.

"There are, to our surprise, thousands of people still in the city that we're trying to identify and locate," said Deputy New Orleans Police Chief Warren Riley. "We're trying to convince them there's nothing for them here — no food, no jobs, nothing to let them live the way they're used to."

Yet many survivors ignored pleas to evacuate, foraging for sustenance by day and staying hidden at night in a city deprived of basic functions.

"They're trying to starve us out," said Barnell Roman, 53, who drank a warm beer on the porch of his two-story home on Elysian Fields Avenue in the Mid-City neighborhood.


well now it seems to me that we have people who ignore warnings about the danger of hurricane Katrina and believe they can survived its power, now they believe they can survive the aftermath. would u tell the govt that they must rescue people who refuse to be rescued or the govt would face consequences?




posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
You have to have the resources to evacuate.

Car, gas, money, room for everyone, no sick dependents, etc.

It's really not as easy for some as it is for others.

But they deserve equal consideration, because it was not their fault that the levees failed.

bc
.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
huh, wat does this have to do with people who refuse to evacuate even if resources are plentiful to help them. they refuse to leave this devastation. i wouldnt be surprise if they refuse to leave if a volcano exploded and lava and ashes came down and they still refuse.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Yes is people that refuse to leave, sometimes is due to desperation of been away from what they had known all their lives.

Also depending the area where they are in, it should be mandatory, but if the area didn't flood and they have food and water and a dry place to live I guess they can wait as long as necessary.

I guess that if the officials decide that is really a dangerous for them to stay they probably will be forcibly remove.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
You have to have the resources to evacuate.

Car, gas, money, room for everyone, no sick dependents, etc.

It's really not as easy for some as it is for others.

But they deserve equal consideration, because it was not their fault that the levees failed.

bc
.


deltaboy is talking about people who are refusng to be "rescued" and are choosing to stay in their homes, some of which are still flooded.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
i wouldnt be surprise if they refuse to leave if a volcano exploded and lava and ashes came down and they still refuse.


Some old guy in a cabin did that during the Mt Saint Helens eruption. He was killed and his cabin destroyed by major mud flows in the aftermath.

I don't get it...but some people just refuse to leave.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
What would you estimate the percentage to be of the overall population within NO? Would that number be unexpected?

IMHO, no real issue here....

[edit on 6-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Some old guy in a cabin did that during the Mt Saint Helens eruption.



Yeah that was Harry Truman Zedd. I remember that so well, how sad.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
They had a guy on FOX they found rowing down the street who said he didn't want to leave his house and he didn't know where his wife was, but about an hour later they had him back on after helping him find out that his wife was already in Houston so he agreed to leave and they said the FOX team would help him get to where the authorities were...so score one for the media there.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
would u tell the govt that they must rescue people who refuse to be rescued or the govt would face consequences?


No. Just because some people wish to hold the government responsible for their part in the disaster doesn't mean that the government is responsible for every single death. This is a typical tactic to imply that another's point of view is ridiculous.

There's nothing ridiculous about blaming the government for cutting funds to needed levee repair. There's nothing ridiculous about blaming FEMA and the government for not getting right in there and helping people ASAP. There's nothing ridiculous about getting upset that the president was playing golf and guitars while people of his country died.

The government is not blameless but they're not responsible for everything either.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Tell you what, if I were in that situation where my choices were leave/have stuff looted and stay/put up with martial law, I'd GIVE the looters my stuff and split!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join