• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

London Terrorist Attacks

Ashles said:
Sure we'll just 'get over' the bomb sites and the closed off roads all around me.
We'll just 'get over' the fact that the British National Party are now using the tragedy to further their own ploitical agenda.
We'll just 'get over' the fact that more attacks are likely.

Do not ever talk to me or anyone else about being 'civilised' after your despicable behaviour.

You are a moron for not having the first clue about how people might react to a tragedy like this.

We are all fully aware of the political ramifications of this act. But people with the slightest degree of intelligence or humanity also understand that sensitivity is required in the immediate aftermath.
This is obviously beyond you.

Good luck with your theories learnt from an economics class. I'm sure they have fully equipped you to solve the terrorist problem.

If you were really interested in talking about the politics of the situation I wonder why you haven't actually tried doing so in the 'Politics' forum?

Get a clue.

ETA: A nice message from another poster has put your comments into perspective. I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to you. It obviously won't get through. Carry on with your political points - I am no longer interested in your comments.

My posts are not intended to be personal except with regard to your insensitivity - which is pretty much indisputable.
I am not debating your politics and do not wish to.

Go cry me a river. All you do is whinge about how my posts belong in the politics forum. How about the posts just above me? They're all about woo-ism? Pfft. I live in Australia, I'm as much likely to get bombed as you. Our last encounter was in Bali. So don't give me that "you don't show sympathy/sensitivity" bs. It's so narrow-minded.

"Do not ever talk to me or anyone else about being 'civilised' after your despicable behaviour." Sure, you have many great posts on these forums, but are you authority? NO. So don't tell me or any other poster what they can or cannot do. Just childish.

"I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to you. It obviously won't get through. Carry on with your political points - I am no longer interested in your comments."
- dodging eh? And calling me a weasal. pfft...typical hit and run tactics as usual.

Once again, your personal attacks are unwelcome. At least some of these posters can point to some of my wrongs, and rights. And I learn. Your posts are just plain childish. People, including me, are hear to listen and learn and offer in return, because it's a public forum. You're just ruining that experience. YOU get a clue.

Ehocking, where in this thread have you posted YOUR sympathy? Why stick your nose here when you've made no contribution to this thread? And start calling out to me? I have already apologised for any offence caused, if you've read my posts. And I've offered my sympathy, for BOTH sides.
 
Seismosaurus said:
I'm not suggesting that we might use nukes or whatever against the terrorists as such; rather, that we could target the middle east in general. Do as they do - target the innocents who have nothing to do with the conflict.

And yes, this could act as a recruiting tool for the terrorists; but that's the whole point, if they step up their attacks they know that it will just cause that much more carnage back home.

Ultimately I doubt they could sustain it; we suffer a hundred bombings, they lose a hundred cities. We could rebuild from that easily, but there would be little left of the middle east by the end of it.

Then we become the terrorists, murdering tens of thousands of innocents for no other reason than the frustrated need to strike back.

The terrorists would have won, finally and completely; we would have surrendered civilization, and become like them - animals who kill from lust for power.
 
sf108 said:
And I've offered my sympathy, for BOTH sides.

For the victims and the terrorists, both? That's an utterly filthy sentiment, if that's what you mean... If not, then please clarify - because it sure seems like that's what you're suggesting.

(edited to give sf the opportunity to explain, rather than simply being condemned by me out of hand.)
 
jmercer said:
Then we become the terrorists, murdering tens of thousands of innocents for no other reason than the frustrated need to strike back.

The terrorists would have won, finally and completely; we would have surrendered civilization, and become like them - animals who kill from lust for power.

This nuke-em idea is clearly a non-starter (for so many pretty obvious reasons) - why are you discussing it at all?

The war against Islamic fundementalist terrorism can only be won (IMO) by a long term, determined intelligence operation. I would hope and expect that our leaders have already planned and are starting to execute such an operation.

sf108: Fancy shedding a tear or two for the nerve-gassed Kurds or the Marsh Arabs betrayed by the US / UK in 1991?
 
sf108 said:
I live in Australia .....

Is that the same Australia that hundreds of Americans died protecting from the Japanese Navy in 1942, at the battle of the Coral Sea? If I remember, that war was about oil, too.
 
hodgy said:
This nuke-em idea is clearly a non-starter (for so many pretty obvious reasons) - why are you discussing it at all?

Only because Seismosaurus was suggesting that the situation could deteriorate to the point where it might be enacted. I agree, it's a total non-starter for all the reasons I stated earlier in this thread.

Basically, you just caught the tail-end of a minor side-discussion. :)
 
jmercer said:
For the victims and the terrorists, both? That's an utterly filthy sentiment, if that's what you mean... If not, then please clarify - because it sure seems like that's what you're suggesting.

(edited to give sf the opportunity to explain, rather than simply being condemned by me out of hand.)

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.

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.

Hodgy, you referring to that operation(whirlwind? can't remember off the top of my head, someone remind me) where they experimented on them?

BillC, nice post. Thanks for contributing.

aggle-rithm, that's right. Down under. We have great steaks here y'know.

Yeh you did save our ass. Couldn't have done it w/o you. Thanks...so that legitamises the US's actions for bombing Iraq? Or anything? Alliances are about military/economic/social growth. It's mutual. Win-win situation, even though sacrifices must be made. eg. our trade relationship with US is bad for our agricultural products, since the US is heavily subsidised, but we benefit from our other products being exposed to your markets.

And we were the same Australians that aided the US in Iraq by clearing a path for US ships by detonating sea mines...using our very own dolphins (which I think is amazing).
 
Mojo said:
I love the post at the bottom of that page: Posted Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:03 pm.

This post then links to a "prediction" of the bombings posted all of four minutes earlier. :rolleyes:
Below is the post some of the believers linked to on that website here .
IMO it is terribly vague.
For one it was not at the airport, 2, they were not caucasian type and it was common knowledge that Tony Blair was away on the Glen Eagles G8 conferencence so what would of them targeting the Prime Minister's office? which they didn't anyway.
Posted by "PsychicsGoneWild": Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:41 pm Post subject: England bomb threat again

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Premonition that England -- London, I think -- a bomb threat, time frame now to end of July at most, but I feel it more toward end of June. Two hot spots -- an area near the Prime Minister office, wherever that is, and also somewhere just outside the airport not in the airport itself, but perhaps at a gate or just outside of that. Yes, I know. London has bomb threats all the time. Yes. It's what I'm picking up, though. Youngish caucasion guys, early 20's, skinhead looking types, terrorist type activity but not sure what it relates to, kind of think it's Al Qaida, but it's caucasion guys. I think they are not from England and are German, or another part of Europe like that. They are carrying the parts in briefcase or leather type bags that have handles, and they are wearing overcoats that are dressier than they normally wear.

CDR
 
epepke said:
One of the people on the BBC last night said that this was the worst terrorist attack ever in Britain.
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.
 
sf108 said:
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.

It's just that most of us do not see the innocent lives lost in Iraq as being 'the other side' of a terrorist attack. You surely understand why we're shocked and horrified that you do.
 
sf108 I’m wondering what you think about some hypothetical responses to some possible tragedies. For instance if there was a post concerning whether an astrologer predicted a pile up on a motorway would you think a response of “my heart goes out to all those suffering in the third world due to global warming” was ok? Or perhaps to use your Eskimo analogy (shouldn’t that be Inuit?) if we were discussing the sinking of a ship out whale watching in Alaska would “my heart goes out to the Eskimo people that have been violated by the US” be appropriate? Or say I was told by a friend that their child had been injured by some malfunctioning toy would I be in the right if I just said “my heart goes out to the workers in the sweat shops of China”? Wouldn’t you think that these responses were inappropriate in these situations? If yes, surely you can see why people were offended by your initial post?
 
sf108 said:
Go cry me a river. All you do is whinge about how my posts belong in the politics forum. How about the posts just above me? They're all about woo-ism? Pfft. I live in Australia, I'm as much likely to get bombed as you. Our last encounter was in Bali. So don't give me that "you don't show sympathy/sensitivity" bs. It's so narrow-minded.
Thank you. Now we all know what a pitiful waste of breath you are.
Go **** yourself.

Firstly you are currently nowhere near as likely to get bombed.
Secondly if you were ,my first response would be sympathy and concern, not be to criticise Australia's foreign policy. It's called being a decent human being. A shame you are unfamiliar with the concept.

"Do not ever talk to me or anyone else about being 'civilised' after your despicable behaviour." Sure, you have many great posts on these forums, but are you authority? NO. So don't tell me or any other poster what they can or cannot do. Just childish.
No. Having heard about terrorism in an economics class and thinking you are knowledgeable on the subject is childish.
Being rude and insensitive and refusing to admit error is childish.

"I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to you. It obviously won't get through. Carry on with your political points - I am no longer interested in your comments."
- dodging eh? And calling me a weasal. pfft...typical hit and run tactics as usual.

Don't use terms you aren't familiar with.
Hit and run posters do not reply. Hence hit and run.
I have replied to you constantly.
Thus your 'dodging' accusation is also stupid.

It's disgusting how you refuse to aplogise for your behaviour.

Once again, your personal attacks are unwelcome. At least some of these posters can point to some of my wrongs, and rights. And I learn.
Fat chance. You have learned nothing.

Your posts are just plain childish. People, including me, are hear to listen and learn and offer in return, because it's a public forum. You're just ruining that experience. YOU get a clue.
You have offered nothing except offense.

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.
I'm sure as a student or recent student you think you know all about everything. As you get older you will discover that you don't.

As it hapend I have several opinions about the politics of the situation, but I wouldn't discuss them on this thread after how it has turned out.
And I would now never be interested in discussing them with you, period.

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.

To be honest I am actually upset by your posts. At a time when there is so much strength and respect being shown by posters and people generally around the globe, emotions that helps us through times like this, to read posts like yours almost feel like a physical kick in the guts.
Especially as I (and millions of others) were against the war all along.
It upsets me that you can't understand this.
It upsets me that you can't have the decency to just say "I was wrong I apologise, it wasn't appropriate" but still have to continue on in a stupid offensive way.
It upsets me that you can't understand that your comments belong in the politics forum in a new thread where it can be discussed appropriately. Nothing is wrong with expressing the opinion, but the way you have done it is appalling.

I wish I could just ignore your posts. But I can't. I find them too offensive to just not respond to.
 
sf108 said:
...Ehocking, where in this thread have you posted YOUR sympathy?
You derailed this thread way before I started reading it.
Why stick your nose here when you've made no contribution to this thread?
Well gee, Einstein, perhaps it has something to do with me living in London and commuting to work every day and feeling that these incidents might have a *little* more personal impact on myself than someone safe in Oz posting peurile, jingoistic and cheap political one liners.
And start calling out to me? I have already apologised for any offence caused, if you've read my posts. And I've offered my sympathy, for BOTH sides.
As for my efforts?

I will be attending the vigil in Trafalgar Square tomorrow evening and signing the Book of Condolence, either there or online and also making a donation to the Red Cross, London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund .

Since you ask.

For those of you who came to this thread to offer sympathies and are not in London, please visit and contribute to the Book of Condolence and the Red Cross, London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund.
 
sf108 said:

aggle-rithm, that's right. Down under. We have great steaks here y'know.

Yeh you did save our ass. Couldn't have done it w/o you. Thanks...so that legitamises the US's actions for bombing Iraq? Or anything? Alliances are about military/economic/social growth. It's mutual. Win-win situation, even though sacrifices must be made. eg. our trade relationship with US is bad for our agricultural products, since the US is heavily subsidised, but we benefit from our other products being exposed to your markets.

And we were the same Australians that aided the US in Iraq by clearing a path for US ships by detonating sea mines...using our very own dolphins (which I think is amazing).

The point I was trying to make is that these foreign policy issues are not so black-and-white as people make them out to be. The reasons that the US went to war in Iraq are complex, and I'm sure historians will be sorting it out for the next few centuries. I certainly don't pretend to understand it, so my choices are to condemn or support the govt's actions on the basis of my lack of understanding (argument from personal incredulity), to oversimplify the issues in order to make it easier to understand (it's about freedom/it's about oil), or to wait and see how it comes out. I think I'll choose the latter.

At this point, the most telling indicator of what's going on in Iraq is that the polls say most Iraqis are concerned most about mundane things like utilities and unemployment, rather than fear of being killed by Americans or insurgents.
 
The whole thing's just terrible. I feel desperately sorry for everyone caught up in it - much the same way as I felt desperately sorry for everyone caught up in the Paddington rail crash, or the Potter's Bar rail crash or any one of the dozen or so similar disasters we've had in recent years. Somehow, after however many years of the IRA, terrorism is just one of the hazards of living, like accidents. And maybe harder to stop, too.

But I also feel desperately sorry for everyone caught up in the regular outrages in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. We have condolence books and charitable relief funds and so on, and I wonder, do the Iraqui victims also have condolence books and charitable relief funds and such a high-profile outpouring of national concern?

Is this how it is when these events are so commonplace they aren't news any more? It's natural to be more concerned when things happen close to home, but we ought to be "involved in mankind" as well.

It's all just a horrible mess, and I don't think petty sniping about who is sorrier about which group of victims is entirely the best way to deal with the situation.

Rolfe.
 
Ashles said:
To be honest I am actually upset by your posts. At a time when there is so much strength and respect being shown by posters and people generally around the globe, emotions that helps us through times like this, to read posts like yours almost feel like a physical kick in the guts.
Especially as I (and millions of others) were against the war all along.

That's the thing that bothers me the most about these posts. sf108's political stance essentially revolves around compassion, but he/she is not showing any compassion. There's some kind of disconnect between his/her ideas and his/her actions. Dead civilians and a terrified city are just abstractions. London is apparently an imaginary place with imaginary people, and Ashles is no more real than the text in a video game. sf108 isn't sitting back and thinking, "Gosh, I'd be pretty scared if someone blew up a bus in my city."

I can read his/her thoughts upon reading that, because I was also once a teenager who thought he knew everything. "If compassion is so important, why can't they put themselves in the poor Iraqi's shoes? This is just one bomb blast, and the Iraqis had hundreds dropped on them. They should stop crying about 50 rich Europeans in London." Whoever suffers the most is the most worthy of empathy. Follow the path that leads to the most bodies and then shed your tears. Divide the world in two, then cheer on the underdog.

Obviously this is a silly way of conducting yourself, but the most ridiculous part about it is that it invalidates anything he/she might have to say about anything, safe and dry as he/she is in Australia. In his/her own view of the world, it would be okay if he/she were bombed. All this sobbing about insults and a ruined experience in this forum, yet people are starving in Darfur. How silly to be pushing keys on a keyboard when he/she should be weeping for them.

I'm imagining a conversation like:
"I feel sympathy for the people in London."
"Oh yea? I feel sorry for the people in Iraq. THAT is suffering, and the Londoners just brought it on themselves."
"Oh yea?! Well I feel sorry for the people in Darfur! The Iraqis were friends to the Europeans while the Africans suffered under the yolk of oppression."
"You call that suffering? I feel sorry..."
And so on until we reach total inhumanity.

How about comforting the people closest to you? Knowing that each number in a casualty count is such a tragedy and waste we'll never comprehend it? Showing some understanding and compassion for everyone, even when they're rich or their problems seem small?

I feel pity for sf108. I remember going through the awkward stage of trying to find an identity, but I'm not about to let him/her get away with ignoring the insensitivity and rudeness of the things he/she has said.
 
Rolfe said:


It's all just a horrible mess, and I don't think petty sniping about who is sorrier about which group of victims is entirely the best way to deal with the situation.

Rolfe.

Agreed! Let's move on.
 
Hard to move on really - 27 killed in Iraq this evening - mostly kids.

I wonder where sf108's sympathies lie with this one.
 
Deetee said:
Hard to move on really - 27 killed in Iraq this evening - mostly kids.
The US soldiers were handing out sweets to the children.

It's incomprehensible. That level of hate and brainwashing defies understanding.


But I think it is time to let this thread die now. It has become an awful mess.

However I would be interested in discussing psychics' rection to the London bombings. If someone feels like setting up a new thread on the subject perhaps we can all start again.
 

Back
Top Bottom