Live Aid 2 Planned for Tsunami Victims

[Convoy]

Live Aid 2 Planned for Tsunami Victims

http://imdb.com/news/wenn/
Bosses of a major British stadium are calling on bands like U2, Coldplay and The Darkness to help raise millions for the victims of the Asian tsunami - by performing at a Live Aid-style extravaganza. Chiefs at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, Wales, are frantically trying to gain the support of their country's politicians in their quest to stage a fundraising concert for the men, women and children left homeless, starving and at risk from disease in the aftermath of the December 26 disaster. Organizers are hoping an "event of international proportions" will take place on January 22 - before the stadium is used for sporting events - but bosses appreciate they are working against an almost impossible deadline. Stadium manager Paul Sergeant says, "It's going to be tight. The pitch comes back into the stadium on the 24th (of January). We won't be able to stage anything after that until the summer." Sergeant insists talks are currently in place with a host of "A-list acts", reportedly including Bono and U2, Coldplay, The Darkness and Franz Ferdinand.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Ooh...there'd be some good bands appearing at this one.

Interesting idea. I'd definitely be checking this one out should everything come together (I'd assume it'd be broadcast internationally or something along that line).

Angela

 

[bono_man2002]

Bono And U2 hey?......

Never heard of u2 before.......

 

[Rono]

Media hypes do rule the world. there is a lot of money going to there already. Band aid money should go to Africa,...

 

[knox]

Interesting. U2 has a knack for playing amazing songs at these sorts of things (see Live Aid 1, as well as a Tribute To Heros).

 

[jick]

It's a great idea and I hope U2 will join in and contribute to the cause. I am all for it but I think I belong to a minority in this board.

However, there are some here who would rather not have U2 join in for the reasons that "if [Bono] keeps taking on causes it makes him look ridiculous" or that Bono "really needs to pick a few causes and stick to them otherwise he will come across as a whineybaby." Another post said that "it would be utterly tasteless if people need entertainment or a speech from a band in order to cough up money to help the victims." Yet another stated that "the last thing U2 needs to do is thrust themselves into the forefront of this disaster."

I think that if U2 are quite compassionate to the 3,000 to 6,000 Americans who lost their lives in 9/11 by playing the Tribute to Heroes event (which solicited money), most of whom probably have insurance and health benefits and whose families are well-taken care of (and probably never lost their homes) by the US's great economy, I feel that U2 will be even more compassionate to the 150,000 who have less in life and suffer from poverty and homelessness. I am confident they will ignore their "fans" who would rather not have them play because they will be "ridiculed" and they will just help because it is for a good cause and for more people and more lives at stake.

Whenever lives are at stake, and U2 are in a position to help - they almost always do and that is one of the best reasons why U2 is my favorite band.

Cheers,

J

 

[knox]

Good God, I agree with jick.

 

[ZeroDude]

My hopes are for Interpol, The Killers, Franz et al to play this, I'm not sure if I want U2 to..................

 

[beli]

Theres two different concerts. LiveAidII is rumoured for July. And then theres the Tsunami concert in January.

Thanks for sharing the info

 

[Jamila]

This Tsunami concert IS NOT DEFINITE - it is a good idea in the minds of well-meaning people. We need to understand that putting together an effective enterprise like a massive international benefit concert takes TIME AND MONEY - both of which would be better spent at this point by supporting the established relief channels already active in the area.

The fact that major relief organizations have yet to support this idea makes me a bit worried WHERE ALL THE MONEY RAISED WOULD GO - there is always the chance in these endeavors that some of the money raised never reach the organizations they are intended to help.

Third, I agree completely with Rono - my biggest concern is that the continuing longterm suffering of Africa will once again be put on the back burner to attend to problems elsewhere in the world.
This has been a historical trend in developed countries' assistance to Africa's development and it MUST NOT BE STOPPED now to help elsewhere!

Following this thought, I would welcome U2's support in some way of the relief effort in Asia but NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF AFRICA. Knowing Bono's historical support for African assistance, I highly doubt that he would strongly take on another "cause". He is FIRMLY COMMITTED TO AFRICA.

It's time for other concerned artists to step up to the plate and advocate for Asia's recovery from the tsunami.

 

[lady luck]

Jamila is right -- and the suspect of some people stealing from charity funds is real, unfortunately.

I don't think Bono will leave Africa behind. Africa is facing a big emegency, of course.
But Asia is so devasteted -- it's impossible not to react!

I just wish that the new year won't bring us as many emergencies as the old one...

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It's a great idea and I hope U2 will join in and contribute to the cause. I am all for it but I think I belong to a minority in this board.

However, there are some here who would rather not have U2 join in for the reasons that "if [Bono] keeps taking on causes it makes him look ridiculous" or that Bono "really needs to pick a few causes and stick to them otherwise he will come across as a whineybaby." Another post said that "it would be utterly tasteless if people need entertainment or a speech from a band in order to cough up money to help the victims." Yet another stated that "the last thing U2 needs to do is thrust themselves into the forefront of this disaster."

I think that if U2 are quite compassionate to the 3,000 to 6,000 Americans who lost their lives in 9/11 by playing the Tribute to Heroes event (which solicited money), most of whom probably have insurance and health benefits and whose families are well-taken care of (and probably never lost their homes) by the US's great economy, I feel that U2 will be even more compassionate to the 150,000 who have less in life and suffer from poverty and homelessness. I am confident they will ignore their "fans" who would rather not have them play because they will be "ridiculed" and they will just help because it is for a good cause and for more people and more lives at stake.

Whenever lives are at stake, and U2 are in a position to help - they almost always do and that is one of the best reasons why U2 is my favorite band.

Cheers,

J

Jick I'm having some serious issues with you belitteling the people who died in 9/11. This is the last time that I will ask nicely for you to stop. You can make plenty of arguments without using this one. STOP.

Despite how you attempt to deny it, you would have to be an utter fool not to see that the majority of your posts are made for one reason and one reason only, to get under people's skin... to stir the shit... to get people pissed. I've come to accept that, merely passing by, even getting a chuckle out of what obscure reference will be your next cause for angst. But you've hit the line here, my friend. Making comparisons over who's disaster is worse is just plain sick. Quit it.

What happened in Southeast Asia is a tragedy. What happened in Lower Manhattan is a tragedy. Leave it at that. People died in Southeast Asia, people, including my friends, died in Lower Manhattan. People without homes, without insurance, poor people, wealthy people, businessmen, CEOs, people of all genders, races, sexuall preferences, religions... all of them died in this tsunami... and the same can be said for 9/11. More than just rich white buisnessmen died that day.

And on the subject of those who died on 9/11... I find it strange how you can remember exact quotes from past threads that counter your argument, yet you still get the death toll from 9/11 wrong despite being told by numerous people what the numbers were. In fact, one person even gave you the death toll, and then told you that you could at least get the numbers right. Low and behold, you still don't. Some may be naive to not be able to see through your games... I, for one, am not.

You're a pretty smart guy... that's obvious. You were put on "vacation" for a while for the negative content of your posts, so ever since you've returned you've figured out how to piss people off without actually breaking the rules set forth in the FAQ. Bravo. Have a fricken cookie. Keep doing it for all I care. Keep finding stupid little idiosyncrasies about every action U2 does to try and raise some sort of reaction. It actually ammuses me. But not this... don't use this disaster in your little F'd up game. Don't use past disasters. Leave it alone. I'm asking you, nicely for the last time. Leave it alone.

 

[Hewson]

Well put Headache.

 

[yimou]

However, there are some here who would rather not have U2 join in for the reasons that "if [Bono] keeps taking on causes it makes him look ridiculous" or that Bono "really needs to pick a few causes and stick to them otherwise he will come across as a whineybaby." Another post said that "it would be utterly tasteless if people need entertainment or a speech from a band in order to cough up money to help the victims." Yet another stated that "the last thing U2 needs to do is thrust themselves into the forefront of this disaster."

Cheers,

J

Jick.... U are full of s...

 

[jick]

Jick I'm having some serious issues with you belitteling the people who died in 9/11. This is the last time that I will ask nicely for you to stop. You can make plenty of arguments without using this one. STOP.

Despite how you attempt to deny it, you would have to be an utter fool not to see that the majority of your posts are made for one reason and one reason only, to get under people's skin... to stir the shit... to get people pissed. I've come to accept that, merely passing by, even getting a chuckle out of what obscure reference will be your next cause for angst. But you've hit the line here, my friend. Making comparisons over who's disaster is worse is just plain sick. Quit it.

What happened in Southeast Asia is a tragedy. What happened in Lower Manhattan is a tragedy. Leave it at that. People died in Southeast Asia, people, including my friends, died in Lower Manhattan. People without homes, without insurance, poor people, wealthy people, businessmen, CEOs, people of all genders, races, sexuall preferences, religions... all of them died in this tsunami... and the same can be said for 9/11. More than just rich white buisnessmen died that day.

And on the subject of those who died on 9/11... I find it strange how you can remember exact quotes from past threads that counter your argument, yet you still get the death toll from 9/11 wrong despite being told by numerous people what the numbers were. In fact, one person even gave you the death toll, and then told you that you could at least get the numbers right. Low and behold, you still don't. Some may be naive to not be able to see through your games... I, for one, am not.

You're a pretty smart guy... that's obvious. You were put on "vacation" for a while for the negative content of your posts, so ever since you've returned you've figured out how to piss people off without actually breaking the rules set forth in the FAQ. Bravo. Have a fricken cookie. Keep doing it for all I care. Keep finding stupid little idiosyncrasies about every action U2 does to try and raise some sort of reaction. It actually ammuses me. But not this... don't use this disaster in your little F'd up game. Don't use past disasters. Leave it alone. I'm asking you, nicely for the last time. Leave it alone.

I never belittled the 9/11 people, did I? I just made a presumption that their heirs, widows and widowers are better off compared to the Asian victims - and I think it is a safe assumption considering America's economic stature and the organization of their government and their benefits. So if U2 would even go out of their way to help 9/11 victims (ok, so I don't know the exact figures/death toll but does that really change anything -whatever it is, it should be considerably less than the tsunami numbers), then with more reason I expect them to help the tsunami victims.

I think it is unfair to label me as comparing which tragedy is worse. You should read the context of what I'm saying. My basic premise is that 9/11 was a tragedy of enough magnitude to let U2 go out and play music. And in my humble opinion, the tsunami disaster also meets that magnitude level that would require U2 to go out and play music. So I tried to compare death tolls (the numbers of which don't really matter now, we know 150,000 in Asia already) and the poverty/economy differences of the regions. And my conclusion is that U2 should go out and play.

The topic of this thread is about U2 playing Live Aid 2. My method for determining whether they may play or not is by looking at the scale and magnitude of the disaster. Other people may have different methods. And then I look back on their last high profile charity performance and what the cause was for. And I compared. Analyzing the magnitude level is important. I mean U2 won't go out and play a charity gig if there were only 2 car bomb victims from a terrorism attack. So analysis of the magnitude is my standard and I think comparing 9/11 to the tsunami is a fair comparison.

The bottom line is my conclusion is that U2 will play Live Aid 2 if it fits their schedule, whether it is the January or the July version planned. My conclusion is that U2 will not just help through cash or silent donations, but they will use their God-given talent, which is their music to help the disaster victims.

It's funny how some people twist the context of my posts just to find negative stuff even if they are extremely positive (my last post ended with "whenever lives are at stake, and U2 are in a position to help - they almost always do and that is one of the best reasons why U2 is my favorite band." I don't see anything wrong with that conclusion and my methodology of arriving at that.

Also, to save space and time, I will also respond to Jamilia here. I don't think being one of the acts in a benefit gig would divert Bono's attention and compromise his commitment to Africa. It's just usually one day of their time, if anything it might compromise their tour schedule. U2 did the Tibetan Freedom concert, the Tribute To Heroes show, the Belfast show with two rivals shaking hands, the Omagh tribute -- all of these were done while Bono was already committed to Africa and I didn't see how it conflicted.

Lady luck, I share your sentiments - Asia is so devastated that it is impossible not to react! I am sure U2 will react in their own way and in due time.

Cheers,

J

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It's funny how some people twist the context of my posts just to find negative stuff even if they are extremely positive

I find it funny how you think we're all so stupid and naive to not see that you spin off your usuall negative bullcrap with one positive line at the end.

Keep doing it on trivial matters, such as U2... don't really care. Just leave the 9/11 comparisons alone.

 

[Wild Angel]

 

[jick]

I find it funny how you think we're all so stupid and naive to not see that you spin off your usuall negative bullcrap with one positive line at the end.

Keep doing it on trivial matters, such as U2... don't really care. Just leave the 9/11 comparisons alone.

What is wrong with 9/11 comparisons? Events are always compared to past events. Even the Associated Press makes comparisons to 9/11. Check out paragraph 6 of this article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/ap/20050103/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_tsunami

To try to somewhat bring this back to U2 topic, even U2's most recent HTDAAB was primarily reviewed by most critic through comparisons with previous U2 albums.

From a U2 standpoint, when rumors surface that U2 might play a high profile benefit gig - they question I would ask is "what was U2's last high profile benefit gig and what were the reasons that led them to play?" Once I figure that out, I will be able to formulate my hypothesis if U2 will play this time or not - by comparing both tragedies.

I still disagree with you and don't see anything inherently wrong with comparing both tragedies for the purpose of discussing on whether or not U2 may play in this newly planned concert.

Cheers,

J

 

[JOFO]

And on the subject of those who died on 9/11... I find it strange how you can remember exact quotes from past threads that counter your argument, yet you still get the death toll from 9/11 wrong despite being told by numerous people what the numbers were. In fact, one person even gave you the death toll, and then told you that you could at least get the numbers right. Low and behold, you still don't. Some may be naive to not be able to see through your games... I, for one, am not.

I was the one that gave him the numbers Headache, and when I read his post that STILL said "3,000...6,000" my blood started to boil.
I know exactly what you're talking about Headache; in fact, I've known it for a awhile, but I haven't wanted to keep bringing it up in case I'm the one that gets banned for "picking" on someone's "right to post something I don't agree with".
I know jick's game, and I see RIGHT THROUGH that fuckin post of his...even if others do not.
I am not responding or reading even 1 more of his posts; I'm done. He is getting off on screwing with people's feelings, twisting his own words to make himself innocent, and SOMEHOW some people still don't see it.

Jick, and this is the LAST time I ever speak to you directly:
if you care even the slightest bit about the victims of 9/11 and what happened, you would've posted "sorry JOFO, I didn't know the exact number" and then used the figure I gave you instead of deliberately still being vague "3,000...6,000".

 

[jick]

I was the one that gave him the numbers Headache, and when I read his post that STILL said "3,000...6,000" my blood started to boil.
I know exactly what you're talking about Headache; in fact, I've known it for a awhile, but I haven't wanted to keep bringing it up in case I'm the one that gets banned for "picking" on someone's "right to post something I don't agree with".
I know jick's game, and I see RIGHT THROUGH that fuckin post of his...even if others do not.
I am not responding or reading even 1 more of his posts; I'm done. He is getting off on screwing with people's feelings, twisting his own words to make himself innocent, and SOMEHOW some people still don't see it.

Jick, and this is the LAST time I ever speak to you directly:
if you care even the slightest bit about the victims of 9/11 and what happened, you would've posted "sorry JOFO, I didn't know the exact number" and then used the figure I gave you instead of deliberately still being vague "3,000...6,000".

I remember the first time I thought it was 6,000 to 10,000 .... then I think you corrected me that it was 3,000 (I may be wrong, I can't remember exactly where to find the original thread). So somehow the 6,000 stuck in my mind but your 3,000 sunk in, so I said 3,000 to 6,000 this time. I don't know the exact numbers and I have admitted this in every subsequent post after my first one.

So now let me set the death toll straight after some research on USA Today:

"Comparable media tallies range from 2,786 to 2,814. The toll of the other attacks is undisputed: 224, not counting hijackers. That includes 184 at the Pentagon and 40 in Pennsylvania."

So there, I stand corrected on my misinformation about the death toll.

So enough of the 9/11 death toll arguments, let try to move back to the original thread: what are your reactions on the planned Live Aid 2 on January and do you think U2 will participate if their schedule will permit? I already gave my opinion so it would be great to hear yours.

Cheers,

J

 

[ADecentMelody]

It's a great idea and I hope U2 will join in and contribute to the cause. I am all for it but I think I belong to a minority in this board.

However, there are some here who would rather not have U2 join in for the reasons that "if [Bono] keeps taking on causes it makes him look ridiculous" or that Bono "really needs to pick a few causes and stick to them otherwise he will come across as a whineybaby." Another post said that "it would be utterly tasteless if people need entertainment or a speech from a band in order to cough up money to help the victims." Yet another stated that "the last thing U2 needs to do is thrust themselves into the forefront of this disaster."

Jick, you're misquoting here and using them to suit your arguments. These quotes were in reference to U2 doing a solo concert to raise money, which can be (as some people say)misconstrued as promoting their new album through tragedy. In the current forum where you have multiple bands participating, I think it's the perfect setting for U2 to use their talents to help raise money for the Tsunami victims.

So, you have misused those quotes above. Apples and oranges, J. And I'm not even going to get into your insensitive 9/11 references.

 

[jick]

Jick, you're misquoting here and using them to suit your arguments. These quotes were in reference to U2 doing a solo concert to raise money, which can be (as some people say)misconstrued as promoting their new album through tragedy. In the current forum where you have multiple bands participating, I think it's the perfect setting for U2 to use their talents to help raise money for the Tsunami victims.

So, you have misused those quotes above. Apples and oranges, J. And I'm not even going to get into your insensitive 9/11 references.

I don't quite remember if you were among those I quoted. If you were, thanks for explaining yourself. I understand how you feel as it seems like I have done a lot of explaining for my posts as of late.

Anyway thanks for the clarification, it does make more sense now and I feel that some of those who may have made these quotes are actually supportive of a Live Aid 2 appearance by U2.

Cheers,

J

 

[neutral]

So enough of the 9/11 death toll arguments, let try to move back to the original thread:

Yes, let's move on please. The speculation about the economic/social status of 9/11 victims is upsetting a lot of people.


And it might be best to debate posts from other threads, in those threads.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

thank you

 

[jick]

You're welcome.



Cheers,

J

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I wasn't thanking you, I was thanking Neutral.

As for you? You're not worth my time and/or effort. Thus, rather than getting into more childish bickering, you've become the first person in 5 years on this place to get the honor of joining my ignore list.

Congrats

Cheers,

H

 

[ADecentMelody]

I don't quite remember if you were among those I quoted. If you were, thanks for explaining yourself. I understand how you feel as it seems like I have done a lot of explaining for my posts as of late.

Anyway thanks for the clarification, it does make more sense now and I feel that some of those who may have made these quotes are actually supportive of a Live Aid 2 appearance by U2.

Cheers,

J

Nope, I'm not among the people you quoted but I've read most of the other threads on the subject. This is my first foray into this topic and observed you misquoted. Just wanted to set things straight, is all.

 

[isabelle_guns]

I am not surprised that there may be another LIVE-AID 2 concert as for the bands, I can do without the darkness but I am all about a good cause in the end.

 

[jick]

I wasn't thanking you, I was thanking Neutral.

Whoops, sorry my bad!

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

I am not surprised that there may be another LIVE-AID 2 concert as for the bands, I can do without the darkness but I am all about a good cause in the end.

Yeah, I am not a big fan of The Darkness too - but their singer did contribute to Band Aid 20 so I think they at least deserve a slot. If you look at the first Live Aid, they did have their fair share of cheesy acts.

Cheers,

J