Would you rather be a war refugee or a natural disaster survivor?

Question

Would you rather be a suvivor of war? would your chances of recieving immediate aid from anyone be any greater than those who survived a natural disaster ie.; a hurricane, earthquake, flood, tornado, tsunami, typhoon,or massive land fires from a forest fire or volcanoe, or an avalanche, mud slide?

Answer 1

Just because you survived either one of these doesn't mean your chances of receiving aide would be immediate. AND just because you're alive, doesn't necessarily mean you survived, it just means you are not dead yet. Being in the thick of things, I can't imagine either would make for a good nights sleep, that night or for nights to follow.

Answer 2

I would definetly prefer to survive a natural disaster than a war. Surviving a war means way more traumatic experiences than a natural disaster. Natural disasters occur by forces of nature and are nobody's fault. Some of them, like hurricanes can only happen for some months a year, and we can learn to be prepared. When things get out of control it's very painful because people can feel helpless and impotent when trying to help love one's, but usually afterwards the community get very united and everyone is helping the others.
War is different because there are people actually wanting you to die, hunting you like an animal just because you belong to a certain group, nationality or country. You live in constant fear and hidding, and if ever get caught, submmited to torture and humilliation. People who survive wars are never the same mentally, and I don't think that the same effect happens after surviving a flood or a tornado, even thought it can be a really hard situation.

Answer 3

War refugee, of course. The word disaster itself is kinda cold to me.
On the other hand, the countries taking refugees provide immediate shelter, food, clothing etc.