London Terrorist Attacks

[sf108]

Thx delphi for your pity. But you do realise you're applying your personal life experience onto mine...doesn't fit. Yeh, I used to think I knew everything...I realised I was wrong in high school when I wasn't in the top 5 anymore. That's why I read more varied books and go online to expand my sources. And fortunately, the JREF has provided a pool of knowledge.

Yet I don't see the point of just blaming me, attacking me with personal insults, that aren't constructive? Yet I keep having to repeat myself:
1. Ashles, you've already mentioned several times I need to apologise/place this post in the politics section.
- I have apologised and it's really too late to post in the politics section. And yet, other people are replying, adding their own political views...why don't you go complain to them?
- have you apologised to me regarding your manner? A few have corrected their aggressive posts, and I happily accept.

2. My posts being offensive
- if there exists posters of Muslim religion, can they post here their outrage at people's sympathy for Londoners, and none for Muslims? Offense is subjective and depending on who's reading it and reacting to it. I take both views and think both parties at fault fueling this conflict.

3. My post inappropriate/insensitive
- I've apologised.

4. "It has been explained to you repeatedly why your posts were offensive. But instead of acting like a grown up and apologising, then perhaps starting a thread elsewhere on the subject you persist in acting like a rude child and hjust keep offending over and over."
- it has been explained to you that I've apologised.
- child? How is commenting on this war reflecting that I'm a child? Just because I still stick to my posts it makes me childish? So it's so "grownup" for you to insult others, yet for me to explain my thoughts on this thread, it is childish?

5. "I couldn't care less about what names you call me. It is very unlikely you could say anything that would come anywhere near what I currently think of you."
- no where in my posts do I curse at anybody. And I don't intend to. Yeh you're upset. Me too. Discussions are meant to be heated. Don't tell me you're an Angel and you've never upsetted anybody.

Plus I believe the terrorists are also the victims here. Although they don't deserve any respect or sympathy, I think they've been brought up to believe they're doing good for their country. They're praised as martyrs and blessed with Allah's power. And they think they're going to Heaven or whatever after they've completed their mission.

I'll like this topic to end too. I've digressed. Yet I seem to keep repeating what I have to say, and keep explaining myself over and over again. And these random hit and runners that post things that aren't relevant to my irrelevant post. hmm

 

[delphi_ote]

And these random hit and runners...

So you're calling it quits AFTER that, right?

 

[kieran]

I would imagine - and pardon me for being presumptuous if I am wrong - that sf108's sympathies lie with the children that were killed. I think that's what he/she has been saying for most of this argument.

Hard to move on really - 27 killed in Iraq this evening - mostly kids.

I wonder where sf108's sympathies lie with this one.

 

[Kilik]

I wasn't being serious about Jean Chretian.

But seriously, I was thinking a terror attack might be due when I saw the shark attack story, but not the exact date or place in that kind of way

 

[EHocking]

I would imagine - and pardon me for being presumptuous if I am wrong - that sf108's sympathies lie with the children that were killed. I think that's what he/she has been saying for most of this argument.

I disagree. His first post was a cheap political shot and one that was as badly thought out as it was jingoistic.

He has shown that he is far too ready to compartmentalise entire populations/races and then tar them all with the same brush. Just as his last poorly thought out argument, in an vain effort to keep rationalising his insensitivity, underlines.

"- if there exists posters of Muslim religion, can they post here their outrage at people's sympathy for Londoners, and none for Muslims?"

Some of the innocent victimes WERE Muslims.
Who live in London.
Therefore both Londoners AND Muslims.

 

[Ashles]

I think we should just take this as the end of the thread now.

 

[jmercer]

err...no. I meant for both the innocent lives killed during the recent bombardment in Iraq ie. Muslim victims last year, and the lastest victims in the London attack. Since someone mentioned their sympathy for the Londoners, I did my part for the Muslim victims. The show started there.

Ah, ok - thanks for clarifying. Glad I didn't jump to any conclusions.

And for the record - for this thread and any other, in fact - I deplore the loss of innocent life regardless of context. The US military made every possible effort to minimize civilian casualites in the first and second Gulf wars. Our adversaries recognized that effort by deliberately placing military targets in locations that made it difficult - in some cases, impossible - to avoid injuring their own citizens.

"Human shields" is an evil concept that's been around for a long time... and terrorists still actively practice this today. They hole up in Mosques; schools; orphanages - in fact, any place they can find that will make it more difficult for people to attack them if they have any regard for innocent bystanders.

Aside from that, even weaponry has it's limits. Bomb's go astray, cruise missiles get lost... and soldiers make mistakes under the stress of combat and in the action of the moment.

I also feel sorry for these innocent victims of warfare; however, I don't find fault with the US, UK or any other participant. The fault and responsiblity for these deaths falls squarely on the shoulders of the old Iraqi government and the current crop of terrorists and insurgents. They did - and are - deliberately placing these poor people in harms way.

 

[jmercer]

I think we should just take this as the end of the thread now.

Sounds like a plan. I posted my reply before reading the rest of the thread...

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think that was a slip of the tongue. I'm assuming that the announcer in the main story who said it was the worst terrorist attack in England was correct. (There was the little matter of an entire airliner falling out of the sky on to Lockerbie, which is in Scotland.)

This means that it must be worse than any of the IRA attacks on England, but I'm not sure if it's worse than some of the things that happened in Northern Ireland.

Rolfe.

Had it been mentioned once, I might have thought it was a slip of the tongue.

When later reports had been updated to refer to the "worst terrorist attack on British soil", then my juandiced view of journalists kicked in. Here was a story that needed no "hype" or "spin" to emphasise how horrific it was, but still they chose to be misleading because it made a nice soundbite.

For what its worth, I think it is bigger than anything done by the IRA in England (Birmingham pub bombings killed 19) or in Northern Ireland (Omagh bombing killed 29).

 

[sf108]

I think we should just take this as the end of the thread now.

Nah...not yet. Ehocking is still digging at it like an over-worked beaver.

Jmercer, I agree with your views. The "collateral damage" is inevitable. Both human lives and infrastructure are destroyed when this sort of conflict occurs. Using human shields is a good guerilla tactic I must say. So is dressing themselves as civilians and then over-coming the enemy. Hey what do you expect? It's war...any dirty trick to win is a good strategy.

And it's very well-mannered of you to not attack me or other posters, but rather post in a decent way. Unlike Ashles, who still hasn't apologised for his ill-manners? cmon...be a sport

But I think there does lie faults somewhere along the line. The extremist Muslims brain-washing some of these young kids (those responsible for the London attacks), and telling them it's for the good of their Muslim community and their nation. That, and the fact that the US is obviously putting on a bad rep from all these detention centre photos of humiliation, Saddam's photos of him in PJs etc. I mean these things don't occur just because it was an "accident".

nuf said.

 

[Ashles]

And it's very well-mannered of you to not attack me or other posters, but rather post in a decent way. Unlike Ashles, who still hasn't apologised for his ill-manners? cmon...be a sport

I have nothing whatsoever to apologise to you for.

And I have seen nothing from you that even comes close to an apology for your insensitivity. So don't pretend you have.

And why are you continuing to dig at me "like an over-worked beaver"?

I had not even referred to you in my last 2 posts. But still you persist in prodding in a childish way, obviously just to get a response.
How mature do you think that makes you appear?
How eager to discuss just the real politics of the situation?

Obviously not very.

Now try and act grown up and end the matter.
If you want to discuss the politics with other posters go ahead, but quit referring to me. We have nothing further to talk about.

 

[jmercer]

But I think there does lie faults somewhere along the line. The extremist Muslims brain-washing some of these young kids (those responsible for the London attacks), and telling them it's for the good of their Muslim community and their nation. That, and the fact that the US is obviously putting on a bad rep from all these detention centre photos of humiliation, Saddam's photos of him in PJs etc. I mean these things don't occur just because it was an "accident".

Unfortunately, yes - some of things discovered in Abu Graib certainly created a field day for the insurgents and terrorists. However, they were citing non-existent acts fo humiliation, murder, and mayhem concerning the US, UK and others long before any of that stuff showed up.

Then you have the recent media morons... like the jerks at NewsWeek who reported the flushing of a Koran down the toilet. That was jumped on immediately by the terrorists and insurgents; plus it almost certainly angered a lot of otherwise neutral Muslims as well.

Newsweek retracting the story later on did nothing to fix the damage; citing "a single report by an anonymous source" as the basis for the report hardly doused the bonfire those idiots created.

Terrorists use all sorts of tactics... disinformation being among them. They appeal directly to young, unemployed, uneducated kids; they indoctrinate them just like any cult; then send them out pre-programmed to die while taking as many "infidels" with them as possible.

Saddam's photos, I agree, weren't an accident. There were released (I believe) specifically to show the Iraqi people how far Saddam had fallen from power; remember, at the time of those pictures being released, a lot of Iraqis didn't believe Saddam had been captured. And a lot of them were still in utter terror that he would return.

Showing him for the garbage he is, in captivity, probably did more to reassure the Iraqi populace than just about anything else they could have done.

And yeah, this thread may belong over in Politics. But I take 'em where I find 'em.

 

[Kaydens]

Now let's be fair Ashles

Plus, why would I show sympathy or pity for terrorists? wtf? I'm against them as everyone else here. This whole thread has digressed. And I apologise for initiating an "irrelevant" post, but it's been taken out of context and distorted by some of these posters who rather insult than post anything sensibly.

sf108 has apologised, once.

I don't like the comments any more than anyone else but to say that there has been no apology is a little unfair.

Kaydens.

PS. Damn I'm just perpetuating the thread.

 

[Ashles]

Now let's be fair Ashles

sf108 has apologised, once.

For being "irrelevant".
I couldn't care less about an irrelevant post (we see them everywhere) - my issue was the offensiveness and the insensitivity of the posts.

But I don't want to get involved with it any further.

 

[delphi_ote]

Nah...not yet. Ehocking is still digging at it like an over-worked beaver.

...

And it's very well-mannered of you to not attack me or other posters, but rather post in a decent way. Unlike Ashles, who still hasn't apologised for his ill-manners? cmon...be a sport

So... you really want discussion of that topic to end. Really. You mean it this time. That's the last comment you'll make. Seriously. Then you'll move on. After you have the last insulting word, there's nothing more to be said on the subject.

 

[EHocking]

Nah...not yet. Ehocking is still digging at it like an over-worked beaver.

The grin says it all.....

You're actually sitting safely in Australia LAUGHING?!

You think ANY of this is FUNNY?!

That's it, I'm done. I just don't have the stomach to deal with someone as low as this.

Feel free to have the last word, low-life.

 

[sf108]

I have nothing whatsoever to apologise to you for.

And I have seen nothing from you that even comes close to an apology for your insensitivity. So don't pretend you have.

And why are you continuing to dig at me "like an over-worked beaver"?

I had not even referred to you in my last 2 posts. But still you persist in prodding in a childish way, obviously just to get a response.
How mature do you think that makes you appear?
How eager to discuss just the real politics of the situation?

Obviously not very.

Now try and act grown up and end the matter.
If you want to discuss the politics with other posters go ahead, but quit referring to me. We have nothing further to talk about.

You're at it again. You keep saying I need to apologise, which I have. Yet when I request the same, you don't. Why's that? My comments offended you, and yours offended me. So now you think you're so tough by not apologising. pfft...That's really mature yeh?

Me prodding childishly? lol ok. Just take a look at most of your posts insisting me to apologise and telling me to post my political comments somewhere else. Jeez...are you in the US govt? Double standards ring a bell?

Ehocking, I can keep posting til you're satisfied that I have made my point clear. Whether or not I post a smiley face to you doesn't change my point on this issue. Yeh, I'm laughing at you. So what? Do you have to be so hard-lined and tough that you can't enjoy a discussion? Can't you discuss matters at a level-headed manner?

I also agree, this thread is exhausted. Yet you guys keep coming back to post acting tough. Who needs to grow up?

 

[Ashles]

And end.

 

[delphi_ote]

Look! That last word you want so badly is all yours!

Take us home, sf108!

 

[crocodile deathroll]

The Egyptian terrorist attack now

Why to these psycho nit wits so quick at claiming they predicted the attack after the event?
Here is a post that is just so very typical.

Originally posted by PsychicsGoneWild on this website

I could kick myself for not posting the premonition I had on Egypt.
But I didn't have much on it. And it wouldn't have done any good anyway.
But I'm wondering is that "Saw-shay" word I kept thinking on and posted, with regard to London bombing, as being a place to be a bomb target soon, actually, was "Sharm el-Sheik" which is the Red Sea resort that was bombed today in Egypt? Maybe not, but I could get Savoy had to do with England, but never could figure out where I got the "Saw-shay" word that came to me several times as a target.

on