A tragedy. 700+ dead and about 3000 missing including 32 Canadians.
This video explains how it happened.
This video explains how it happened.
Nepal Flash Floods
- Thread starter Shaquille Oatmeal
- Start date
Reminds me of how devastating it was to hear about the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. After the winter break, school had to pause their lesson plans and that was when I knew how serious it was. Having recently revisited that (and also watched a Mount St Helen’s eruption documentary), there really are no words to describe how tragic all these natural disasters are and how safe the Greater Toronto Area is in comparison.
This is absolutely nuts, I don't think flash flood covers even a fraction of what that truly was
This could have easily been prevented if they had a world leader who was smart and knew what to do like Donald Trump. If elected there he would have looked at the area and called up his top engineer friends and would have been like that area is gonna get flooded soon lets do something about it. I feel bad for Nepal for not having Trump or someone with a similar mindset to him.
Another flash flood in the Gran Canyon killed a few but nothing like Nepal.
That's a very good point. The GTA has very catastrophic natural disasters. In the 1950's, Hurricane Hazel fucked our shit up, but that was 70 year ago, and nothing remotely similar has happened. Sure, we could get an ice storm like the one that fucked up Montreal/Quebec in the late 90s, and sure, maybe a tornado....but by and large, we're in a relatively safe space when it comes to these types of events.
Here we go with the unnecessary China bashing again.
The disaster unfolded rapidly in minutes and as far as I know, China and Nepal do not have any advanced data sharing agreements.
Not to mention, it must be extremely difficult to track and accurately predict such disasters in the vast, remote and difficult Himalayan terrain.
So when facts are pointed out you claim that it is "unnecessary china bashing." Crazy to me how people are willing to give the CCP a pass on almost everything and defend them just because they are antithetical to the west. Here are some facts regarding this disaster.
Fact #1 - the Nepalese officials have continually asked for increased information sharing from the Chinese side months earlier regarding joint-risk mitigation, glacial lakes and hazard mapping.
Fact #2 - China didn’t issue any warning when Gyirong district was struck 7 minutes earlier. Minutes count during natural disasters. They didn’t think to even warn the Gyirong port (where there are thousands of employees and tourists) and the other downstream communities.
Fact #3 – The CCP had warning signs days earlier "including melt water that had turned visibly brown and signs of a crack propagating into the surrounding bedrock slope." They had been practicing evacuation drills 3 weeks earlier. You can look up the Gyirong District 2026 Glacial Lake Outburst Disaster Emergency Evacuation Drills. They knew this was a possibility, if not probable and still didn’t send warning signals when minutes count.
Fact #4 - Power China was constructing a hydroelectric dam in the path of this river. This is a fragile geological environment that already has seismic activity - blasting rock, digging tunnels – what do you think is gonna happen?
Fact #5 - Researchers were warning as early as 2017 that the Gyirong Zangbo corridor would be highly susceptible (61% of mapped area) to glacier-related debris. Chinese scientists that studied railways construction in this area estimated that about 44% of the area is categorized as “extremely high susceptibility to failure.” Yet the CCP builds it anyways. Complete negligence by the CCP where they just build these vanity projects quickly as a facade and ignore the risks. Why do you think all their bridges always collapse?
Fact #6 - All news regarding this is censored on Weibo and only Chinese state media is allowed to report on this incident. Thus the ridiculous initial death toll claiming only “3 people” dead according to Chinese state media. The CCP is a complete joke.
Given these facts, you think the CCP is acting responsibly and this is just "unnecessary china bashing?"
Quick AI overview. Looks like as usual most of your statements are false.
| # | Fact/claim actually being made | Verdict | Correction |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nepalese officials had previously sought increased information sharing with China regarding joint risk mitigation, glacial hazards and hazard mapping. | 🟢 TRUE | A Nepal–China meeting took place on May 27, months before the disaster, specifically discussing stronger cooperation on floods, weather and glacier-related hazards, including joint risk reduction, glacial-lake inventories and hazard mapping. (Reuters) |
| 2 | China knew about the disaster seven minutes earlier and failed to warn Gyirong Port and downstream communities. |  FALSE | The precise claim that authorities had seven minutes of confirmed advance knowledge of the impending catastrophic flood and failed to warn people is not established by the available evidence. The disaster reaching one location before another does not itself prove authorities knew what was happening early enough to issue an effective warning. |
| 3 | Authorities had warning signs days earlier, including brown meltwater and cracks in surrounding rock. | 🟢 TRUE | Post-disaster satellite analysis identified precursor signs including accelerated glacier movement, sediment-rich/brown meltwater and new cracks in surrounding rock. (The Australian) |
| 3 | Therefore, the CCP knew the collapse was probable or imminent. | FALSE | This conclusion does not follow from the existence of precursor signs. A hazard indicator or instability sign is not the same thing as a scientifically established prediction that a catastrophic collapse is imminent. |
| 3 | Authorities conducted an evacuation drill three weeks earlier specifically demonstrating they knew this disaster was likely to occur. | FALSE | Even assuming the drill itself occurred, a disaster drill demonstrates preparedness for a possible class of hazards, not knowledge that this particular glacier collapse was probable or imminent. The conclusion being drawn is unsupported. |
| 3 | Because they knew the collapse was coming, authorities negligently failed to issue warnings when minutes mattered. | FALSE | The necessary premise—that authorities knew the specific collapse was imminent and had a verified opportunity to warn downstream communities—has not been established. |
| 4 | POWERCHINA was constructing a hydroelectric dam in the area, therefore construction activity is relevant to or implicated in this glacier/rock collapse. | FALSE | This is irrelevant information used to imply causation. Even if a dam project existed and involved blasting or tunnelling, that does not establish that construction caused or contributed to this collapse. The disaster has been attributed to a glacier/rock collapse, and no evidence currently establishes the alleged construction-to-collapse causal link. (The Wall Street Journal) |
| 4 | The Himalayas are geologically fragile and seismically active; therefore blasting and tunnelling explain what happened. | FALSE | The geological fragility may be true, but it is not evidence connecting construction activity to this event. It is a non sequitur: true background information does not prove the implied cause. |
| 5 | Researchers had previously identified the Gyirong/Zangbo region as highly susceptible to glacier-related debris flows and slope failures. | 🟢 TRUE | The broader proposition is supported: Himalayan terrain in this region has long been recognized as highly vulnerable to glacier- and slope-related hazards. The 2026 disaster itself resulted from a glacier/rock collapse in precisely this type of steep, unstable mountain environment. (The Australian) |
| 5 | Exactly 61% of the mapped area was highly susceptible to glacier-related debris. | FALSE | The exact numerical claim has not been sufficiently established from the evidence currently available here. Under the strict standard, an unverified statistic is false as presented until supported by the original study. |
| 5 | Exactly 44% of the area was classified as having "extremely high susceptibility to failure." | FALSE | Same problem: the precise statistic and its context need verification from the underlying research. Until established, it is false as presented. |
| 5 | The CCP built infrastructure anyway and therefore demonstrated "complete negligence." | FALSE | This is an opinion/legal characterization, not an established fact. Building infrastructure in a high-risk region does not by itself prove negligence. Evidence would be required showing ignored risk assessments, inadequate engineering, violations, or a causal connection to the disaster. |
| 5 | Chinese projects are "vanity projects" built quickly as a facade. | FALSE | Political characterization/opinion, not a fact. |
| 5 | Chinese bridges "always collapse." | FALSE | An obviously false absolute claim. Chinese bridges do not "always" collapse. |
| 6 | All news about the disaster was censored on Weibo. | FALSE | Evidence supports significant information control and censorship in Tibet, but "all news" is an absolute claim that is not supported. Reporting indicates that information and imagery about the disaster did circulate on Chinese platforms, even though sensitive or unverified content was controlled. (UOL Notícias) |
| 6 | Only Chinese state media was allowed to report on the incident. | FALSE | Independent reporting in Tibet was heavily restricted, but that is not the same as establishing that literally only state media was allowed to report anything about the incident. (The Guardian) |
| 6 | The initial Chinese death toll of three proves the CCP deliberately lied or concealed the real death toll. | FALSE | An inaccurate early casualty figure does not itself prove deliberate deception. Early death counts in catastrophic disasters can change dramatically as search and recovery operations proceed. China later reported substantially higher confirmed deaths and missing persons. (Reuters) |
| 6 | "The CCP is a complete joke." | FALSE | Pure opinion/insult, not a factual claim. |
