London terroist attack!!

What happened?

Some buses were bombed, 90 casualties, etc, etc...

ahh, french revenge ;p

for (Please refrain from swearing)s sake, your stupid topics wouldn't be so annoying if you deemed them discussion of a topic. But when you ask stupid (Please refrain from swearing) like "what happened" when it's all over news sites, television, and google, it makes me wish I were an arm's length away from you, so I could spin around and rip your jaw off doing a 360.

Nope, italian...

:(

I can't belive you wasted your time writing all that noobface. Now shhhh im listening to the news. And is google your answer to everything - why don't you use it to try and find a way to get rid of me.

It would've taken him a minute at the most to type it up. You should've used your common sense and read before making yourself look even more useless.

so...

maybe he was also trying to bring it up.

i had no idea, until i saw the thread

quote:And is google your answer to everything - why don't you use it to try and find a way to get rid of me.

I already did. I googled "How to rid forums of stupidity" and I got a great website explaining in detail how to get other people to use google and common sense before spamming forums with questions a 3 year old with a keyboard could answer.

cool what's the site? And yes I did search google.

To all of you (Please refrain from swearing) who made jokes about these attacks; grow up.

This just goes to show that Bush's 'War in Iraq' has done nothing to stop terroirsts. What a f**king asshole.

quote:This just goes to show that Bush's 'War in Iraq' has done nothing to stop terroirsts. What a f**king asshole.
How do you know? It is possible that if Bush had not had the war in iraq, that there would have been plenty more terrorist attacks already

Hitman... quit being such a... filibusterer.

EDIT: :)

look neither america or london has the guts to do something about it so i geuss were gonna have to wait til they bomb russia and iraq becomes the worlds largest lake :P, till then pull up a chair, grab a beer and stay away from trains

EDIT: it was a joke, probaly a touchy subject to poke fun at, im australian we make fun of everything, ask captain ben

Hitman: to put it softly, I don't think you know what you're saying. Well, I'm assured you know <i>what</i> you're saying, but there's very little validity (not to mention logic) to it.

And, pro-Bush or not, I'm trying to understand how al-Zarqawi's claimed bombings of London makes Bush an a**hole.

quote: look neither america or london has the guts to do something about it


Tell that to the families of the soldiers who died fighting to keep Iraq free. You honestly think they're done nothing? Man, if so, you're just plain ignorant

"A group calling itself the "Secret Organization group of al-Qaeda Organization in Europe" claimed responsibility in a Web site posting. The authenticity of the claim could not immediately be verified."
Somehow I dont belive that Al-Quida could be behind this. It's too small. But then again, we cant realy know that Al-Quida is actualy responcible for the attack on WTC.

Taal: It's not that they "dont have the guts". They cant do anything to prevent these attacks. What would you do? Turn the whole country in a police state?
I'm dying to hear what Bush will have to say to this. But then again, I already know it's gona be something like "This means war" in a complicated way so us, stupid people dont understand a thing and MUST agree with him("Eighter you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" -G.W.Bush).

EDIT: "U.S. sources say at least 40 dead" -cnn

well (Please refrain from swearing)

quote:Originally posted by n00bfacequote:This just goes to show that Bush's 'War in Iraq' has done nothing to stop terroirsts. What a f**king asshole.
How do you know? It is possible that if Bush had not had the war in iraq, that there would have been plenty more terrorist attacks already

I totally agree with you llama.

quote:Originally posted by Taallook neither america or london has the guts to do something about it so i geuss were gonna have to wait til they bomb russia and iraq becomes the worlds largest lake :P, till then pull up a chair, grab a beer and stay away from trains

EDIT: it was a joke, probaly a touchy subject to poke fun at, im australian we make fun of everything, ask captain ben


I can't stand when someone says something stupid/offensive and can't back it up when people don't agree with them. They just say they are "joking". Either way, if something happens to Australia the US will probably try to help you guys. Please don't be so ignorant. :(

I died in that terrorist attack in London.

so did i.

(Please refrain from swearing). It's scary being so near to the attack. Liverpool Street is 5 stops or so away from my nearest station. To clarify things here's what I've heard/seen etc.

There were 4 blasts. 2 on trains, 1 at a train station, 1 on a bus. At least 30 people have died and 150+ are injured. Al-Quieda claimed responsibility for the attack.

All you people making jokes about it, I hope your bodies slowly rot in a pit as maggotts nibble at your flesh. You sick (Please refrain from swearing)s.

It's on every damn channel over here. We ain't had (Please refrain from swearing) like this since the IRA cease-fire back in the late 90's.

Not every channel. Only BBC 1 and ITV. (Terrestrial Channels)

It's on 8 Finnish channels here.

so french or al qeada?

quote:Originally posted by eagleclaw364
All you people making jokes about it, I hope your bodies slowly rot in a pit as maggotts nibble at your flesh. You sick (Please refrain from swearing)s.

Your a sick (Please refrain from swearing) too >.<

Anyways be safe UK soldaters

@aznbl00d
I don't want to be a smartass but it's Al-Qaeda. :D

quote:Originally posted by Cookie.
Your a sick (Please refrain from swearing) too >.<


Yes.

quote:Originally posted by HitmanTo all of you (Please refrain from swearing) who made jokes about these attacks; grow up.

This just goes to show that Bush's 'War in Iraq' has done nothing to stop terroirsts. What a f**king asshole.

If you blame today on the Iraq war, I ask you this; Which war was it that incited 9/11?

At least you retained some credibility in the post by telling those cockwipes who still have to hold mummies hand when crossing the road to shut up. -_-

Goofy - Were you joking about this event..? If so, I'd refer you to Hitmans previous post...

Why do people turn away the idea that it is Al-Qaeda? They may be doing a small scale attack in Central London to put them into a full sense of security then blow somewhere else up.

I forgot to say this before.

I must dissagree with Noobface's statement. There is still no evidnece that Iraq had connections with Al-Quida or any other terrorist organisations. At least not to my knowlage. A possible reason for this attack may be the G8 meeting. Or maybe just a cry for attention, or a warning. Face it, you cant blame Bush for everything.

This is just like Tsunam dissaster. People didnt have the reason t be mad at the USA so they blamed the polution wich comes from America, wich comes from Bush. Someone actualy said that it's becouse Antarctica is melting, meaning, more water, meaning, preasure on the tectone plates(or however they're called in english), meaning, earthquake. I couldnt even laugh.

EDIT: Sorry, noobface's AND Hitmans statement.

quote:Originally posted by flabquote:Originally posted by HitmanTo all of you (Please refrain from swearing) who made jokes about these attacks; grow up.

This just goes to show that Bush's 'War in Iraq' has done nothing to stop terroirsts. What a f**king asshole.

If you blame today on the Iraq war, I ask you this; Which war was it that incited 9/11?

At least you retained some credibility in the post by telling those cockwipes who still have to hold mummies hand when crossing the road to shut up. -_-
Read my post; where did I say this was a consequence of the Iraq War? I said that it has done nothing to stop terrorism, which was supposedly the aim.

Enjoy, the reason why I think bush is an asshole is due to the fact that he betrayed people's trust and dependence on the US government (and others) by starting a pointless war. There were no Al-Qaeda associated terrorists in Iraq before we invaded it. Now, however, there are terroirsts who have teamed up with resistance fighters (Iraqis who are against American 'occupation') because they both have the same goal; to kill Americans.

Props to the emergency services that have done an excellent job in helping those affected. This is what they've been training for and they're pulling it off wonderfully.

To those social rejects who seem to think this is funny obviously don't have any social skills, remorse or compassion for our fellow humans. Just stop and think for a minute; dozens of innocent people have just been killed going about their normal lives. Just because you see it through your TV or computer screens doesn't make it any less real than it is. This is happening right now; there are no saves or loads, this is real so grow the f**k up you immature pricks.

Latest news we're receiving in this country is over 100 casualties and 33 fatalities.

Some info for those too lazy to read news websites:

4 bombs went off - 3 were on underground trainlines, 2 of them hit a single train each and another was timed to hit 3 as they passed eachother. 1 bomb was on the top floor of a double decker bus, which had the top deck completely blown off.

Although these bombs didn't do as much damage as the Madrid train bombings, and definitely not as much as 9/11, they have brought transport in London to a complete standstill, a city reknowned for having bad transport - in fact, London almost didn't win the Olympics bid, because of the transport situation.

I'd like to end this post with a (rough) quote that I heard on the tv..."The formerly double decker bus was crashed in the square, and there was a blood stain on a nearby wall."

This ain't a f**king joke, guys.

Hitman, there was a quite obvious snipe at Bush and "his" war (as you put it) in your post and don't try to deny it. If there wasn't, why end by calling him a "f**king asshole"?

quote:why end by calling him a "f**king asshole"?quote:Enjoy, the reason why I think bush is an asshole is due to the fact that he betrayed people's trust and dependence on the US government (and others) by starting a pointless war. There were no Al-Qaeda associated terrorists in Iraq before we invaded it. Now, however, there are terroirsts who have teamed up with resistance fighters (Iraqis who are against American 'occupation') because they both have the same goal; to kill Americans.Dude, don't tell me what I meant by my post; I'm telling you what I meant, whether you like it or not.

Stalky, on BBC.co.uk it says 37 dead, 700 injured. And too true, this is no f*cking joke.

I'll agree to most of that. However, since 9/11, we've had very very very few terrorist actions carried out on US soil. And the few incidents have been isolated. With strict...er immigration policies and an actual border patrol, along with a true intelligence database on terrorism (FBI/CIA reformation), we've been able to pinpoint these bad guys, to stop these things from happening. The problem in the UK, unfortunately, falls back to some of the socialist tendencies the terrorists have just exploited. Such an open-door policy in time of war, well...I never thought I'd say it, but they're not coming for the free healthcare. Three years of relative peace. Now we're back to just dealing with our idiots who kill and rape for no apparent reason.

My only thought: If a country is to be involved in a war against an enemy that moves in very small numbers and uses cowardly suicide as a primary means of attack, and this enemy usually attacks in urban cities with high populations, would it not be practical to either filter people entering the country or halt all incoming traffic for a period of time? An open border that allows people to move freely fits perfectly for this enemy, as they do not necessarily utilise tanks, airplanes, etc as methods of attack. I love the UK to death, but the fact is you're as much at war with these people as we. Either adapt to the times or give in. Which is all this attack was attempting: lower UK morale, eventually Blaire will give up, USA will be left alone, etc. I hope it will backfire and simply piss off more people than it depresses.

There are tons of unsuspecting people to point fingers at. I'd point my finger towards the leaders of these terrorist organisations before a slightly-misinformed cowboy.

quote:Originally posted by eagleclaw364Stalky, on BBC.co.uk it says 37 dead, 700 injured. And too true, this is no f*cking joke.


Sorry, I was in a car til about when I posted that, so I'm still catching up on details..

700...christ.

Hitman, you are an asshole. Because you betrayed my trust and dependence on soldatforums by spouting bulls**t and showing no sympathy, condolence or regret in what you said. Put your Michael Moore bull(Please refrain from swearing) aside for one f**king day mmkay? As someone on BBC Radio London said earlier when a caller started to blame Blair and Bush "Your point is not needed, nor welcomed today, tomorrow or the day after. Show your support and sympathy for the millions of Londoners stuck in London as they can't get home, and those that lost their lives and are seriously injured".
End of.

anyone else wonder why these people who claim responsibility have never been heard of before? seems like some (Please refrain from swearing) just wanted to look cool to their people and claimed responsibility with a made up organiziation name.
bush's speach was.....bland. he didnt say much anything, though he sure talked alot.

Bah, 700 people? All we can say now is 'get better soon' for the injured and 'rest in peace' for the murdered. Goddamnit.

Edit: Here's stuff from last 5 mins of CNN site: "An intense police hunt is under way in Britain for terrorists behind a string of bombings on London's transport system that killed at least 37 people and wounded 700 early today. Investigators have not yet said whether they believe the bombers left explosives on three trains and a bus or mounted suicide attacks."

quote:Originally posted by The GeologistGoofy - Were you joking about this event..? If so, I'd refer you to Hitmans previous post...

Yes... Sorry.
Back to topic; Finland says that 37 are dead...

Yeah, 37 dead, 700 injured. Damn this is scary.

Michael Moore? Wtf. He's a fat knob who exaggerates everything. I might have used some of his books as a source of information for my posts over a year ago, but not anymore. Plus, it's just common sense really.quote: As someone on BBC Radio London said earlier when a caller started to blame Blair and Bush "Your point is not needed, nor welcomed today, tomorrow or the day after. Show your support and sympathy for the millions of Londoners stuck in London as they can't get home, and those that lost their lives and are seriously injured".I hope your not implying this as being my stance on the matter because so far I appear to be the most sympathetic in this thread.

Firstly, I never said this was Blair's or Bush's fault. I merely said Bush is an asshole for starting a war which has done nothing to stop the attacks, I never said these attacks were his fault, you f**king moron.

Secondly, is there anything wrong with being sympathetic and angry at the same time? As Enjoy said:quote: With strict...er immigration policies and an actual border patrol, along with a true intelligence database on terrorism (FBI/CIA reformation), we've been able to pinpoint these bad guys, to stop these things from happening. The problem in the UK, unfortunately, falls back to some of the socialist tendencies the terrorists have just exploited. Such an open-door policy in time of war, well...I never thought I'd say it, but they're not coming for the free healthcare. Three years of relative peace. Now we're back to just dealing with our idiots who kill and rape for no apparent reason.That is what has pretty much stopped any further terrorist attacks in the US, not the war in Iraq. I mean, it's not like every [potential] terrorist goes through Iraq on his way to either the UK or the US. That's why I am angry with Bush; for wasting money on a pointless war and dragging Blair along with him thus wasting British tax payers money.

*yawn*

Now now girls, calm down.

Havn't any of you learned that it's useless to argue over the internet?

I certainly have; opposition can take as much time as it needs to gather enough counter information to keep the debate going forever, like Christianity vs. evolution, Soldat vs. CS, etc. xD

I can't find any information about the possible motives behind the attack, has anyone else read anything about this?

I'd like to take a stance on the argument that's currently going on, but I find that it's wholly irrelevant and stupid at this point. Especially when one's main rebuttal is "yawn" -- that's downright immature and you know it. But that's a side issue. I really can't argue with you guys because all I can think about is the dead. In fact, I'm so affected by it that it seems to me that the only reason you guys can carry on the argument that you're having is because, despite what you claim, you don't really care about the people that died. They're just a statistic to you. You're the common foot soldier who isn't wise enough to recognize the significance of what's happening around him, only that it is, in fact, significant and that he should feel something.

Why anyone would take an innocent life is beyond me. My only possible reason is that with the growing vastness of civilization, we have lost touch with our fellow brothers -- much like the child that steps on an ant without reason but wouldn't kill his own dog if it were in pain; he's close to his dog because he can see it, talk to it, but the ant is just an insignificant thing at the end of his foot. And thus, any actions we make don't take a toll on our conscience because we can't see the faces of the people we're killing anymore.

People are dying and you're talking about Bush. In all seriousness, shame on you.

my girlfriend is on vacation in london O;!!

really? what kind of hay do you feed her to keep her wool shiney?

shut up fangus, this is a serious matter so none of your f*cked up jokes.

Wow, I hadn't heard anything about this all day. =| It's a good thing that there weren't a large amount of casualties, despite all the injured people. Do we know who actually did this? I think it's idiotic how people jump to the conclusion that this is all because of the war. Then again, what do I know, but it's my opinion.

Secondly, Vijcht, to be honest, I would be one of those common foot soldiers myself. I honestly can't say that I truthfully care about the people that died today. I mean, I do care about them, but not so much as for it to affect my whole day. I think that tomorrow it will strike me harder because it will be an active topic. I'm sorry if it makes me a bad person, but other than knowing this is significant, I don't feel anything in particular. It might make me seem like the devil through your eyes, but somehow I don't feel the way you do unless I force myself to.

Kazuki, I would be lying if I said that those deaths affected me throughout the entire day. It's both unusual and unnatural for anyone to dwell on one subject for an entire day, no matter the severity. That's what keeps us going. But when it comes down to the subject itself, from a detached perspective, then I can't think of much else.

As for disdain about you not caring, I have none. You have your set of ideals and I respect and understand that. I also understand that in order to be empathic you need to place yourself in the victim's shoes, which is very difficult for many people -- especially in an event like this. It doesn't make you the devil not to feel anything, it just makes you ignorant to your connection with the rest of the world; that's something that I don't necessarily feel that anyone should have to deal with, but I don't look down upon someone who can't make that bridge.

Yeah, I suppose it's not something to brag about if you're not connected with the rest of the world. However, I find the lack of civilization in my surroundings comfortable, and I'm glad you don't consider that to be immoral. In other words, I'm a geek and I don't get out much, but that's the way I like it and it's nice to know that not everyone is against it. I'm one of those people that prefers to be part of a community in which he isn't just another person in the crowd; a community in which names are recognizable. So, because of that desire, I try to make it happen.

Back on topic, what I'm trying to say is that because of my own ideals, I don't question the activities of the world. What I do is what I do, where I am is where I am, and what I'm involved in stays as just that; no questions asked. That's about as simple as I can state it.

Back to the original point, I admit that what you say is true, and though it may generally be considered immoral, I don't see it that way in my head. Like I said, I'm glad it doesn't cause you to lose the respect that you have for me (whatever that may be :P).

This is like London's 9/11 except its 7/7. The terrorists want British troops out of Iraq thats why they are bombing. Damn they really deserve their heads sliced off slowly and painfully with a machete just like those other terrorists did to those Americans that were taken prisoner (did anyone see the video of the head cutting? i didnt see it and i do not want to..).

dude. you cant really blame anyone, although im not saying they were morally correct (obviously). sadly enough, its the way society works; pride before heart. *sigh*

bush senior launched desert storm, bush junior launched the iraqi war, bin laden launched 9/11 (and probably this attack). we, the insignificant little forumers, can do little about it.

I find it sort of creepy in the fact that the first 9/11 attacks, the Madrid bombing, and this all occured approximatly at 8:50 AM (I heard this on the radio)
Is the timing of these attacks merely to show how organized they actually are ?

I doubt the timing was that perfect...but yes, attacking during rush hour traffic usually yields the most damage.

the timing hasnt been perfect on any of them, but it's been good enough to freak everyone out. notice how everyone's on guard right after? and nothing happens at all? yea.... it's working. not long term though, it's just pushing america further into the middle east beast. ill take center square for the win (iran, btw)

quote:Originally posted by VijchtidoodahI can't find any information about the possible motives behind the attack, has anyone else read anything about this?




Wait isn't there the live8 or whatever summit going on ?

and the previous day london was picked for the 2012 olympics. nobody on TV's said anything about that...especially on BBC :|

quote:Originally posted by Taal
EDIT: it was a joke, probaly a touchy subject to poke fun at, im australian we make fun of everything, ask captain ben


Stupid terrorists. They made me miss Lost.
I wasn't even paying attention and even I knew what happened.
If it weren't for Lost being on at 8:30, I would have never found out about it until a few weeks later :P

But seriously, Mickle. It was breaking news on 19 different channels and you resorted to asking the forums what happened?

quote:Originally posted by Fangus Deefand the previous day london was picked for the 2012 olympics. nobody on TV's said anything about that...especially on BBC :|

Channel 7 here was using SKY News broadcasts and they said that
he good feeling from that was "overwhelmed by today's attacks".

Oh and there are free Paris 2012 Olympic t-shirts being given away, semi-related.

Sorry Mr. Foxtel or Mr. Digital but we have 6 channels - 2, 7, 9, 10, 28, 31

Only in WA.

The death toll rose to about 50 today and they're still searching the tunnels.

quote:Wait isn't there the live8 or whatever summit going on ?
G8* :D They agreed a $50bn addition to aid.

G8* wtf is that suppose to be

It's odd that the US only puts their defence up when something happens. Shouldn't we always be on alert?

^so true. did you watch abc last night?

they say its gonna be well over 50 fatalities.. 1 norwegain :p

Rumors are, terrorists now threat to attack Rome. Slowly, I'm begining to support this "war on terrorism". With my own ideals ofcourse.

i still support the 2nd ammendment about 70% as much as the first

Think about this, who benefits from this attack? What purpose will this attack achieve for the terrorists?

Supposedly, this attack is revenge against Britain for sending troops into Iraq, but after 9/11 we saw that the terrorist attack on the United States started the "War on Terror". US troops were deployed to fight "terrorists" in Afghanistan. The attack brought US troops to the "terrorist"s homeland, do you think this is what the terrorists wanted? This in no way helped their cause, in fact it worsened their situation. Don't you think they would have learned their lesson? By attacking the US they only brought US troops to their homeland. This time, they attacked another country and it will give the same results.

Now listen to this: On July 4th 2005 the British ministry of defense announced that they were drafting plans to move British forces out of Iraq. Isn't it strange how these events coincided?
The London attack will give more support for the "War on Terror" thereby keeping British troops in Iraq. Who benefits? Obviously those who want war in the middle-east to continue. "Terrorists" want foreigners out of their homeland, why would they do this attack if it will only keep British troops there?

So freaking true ^ ^. The terrorists are so freaking dumb. They want foreigners out of their homeland, and yet it was them who caused the foreigners to stay in their homeland. Probably got a peanut in their skull..

they're just making a statement that they won't stop fighting for what they believe is right
or it's really goverment trying to keep people scared
mwahaha

quote:Originally posted by karmazonG8* wtf is that suppose to be


The Great Eight. The eight most economically developed countries or something.

Well I don't see a star anywhere in "The Great Eight"

The police down here have just discovered that the bombings that were on the trains (3) were actually within 50 seconds of eachother. They weren't as widely spread out as they thought. Also as I was watching the news last night they were saying how alike the attacks were to the Madrid Bombings.

There have been 49 confirmed deaths, but 25 more are feared missing.

That sucks. Do you think the Queen will go Rambo on them?

Pfft. I hate the queen. :/ She doesn't do anything and she's so rich. She should give some of her money to us all. :D

quote:Well I don't see a star anywhere in "The Great Eight"
You noob, I was making a spelling correction. :D

quote:Originally posted by MichalThink about this, who benefits from this attack? What purpose will this attack achieve for the terrorists?

Supposedly, this attack is revenge against Britain for sending troops into Iraq, but after 9/11 we saw that the terrorist attack on the United States started the "War on Terror". US troops were deployed to fight "terrorists" in Afghanistan. The attack brought US troops to the "terrorist"s homeland, do you think this is what the terrorists wanted? This in no way helped their cause, in fact it worsened their situation. Don't you think they would have learned their lesson? By attacking the US they only brought US troops to their homeland. This time, they attacked another country and it will give the same results.

Now listen to this: On July 4th 2005 the British ministry of defense announced that they were drafting plans to move British forces out of Iraq. Isn't it strange how these events coincided?
The London attack will give more support for the "War on Terror" thereby keeping British troops in Iraq. Who benefits? Obviously those who want war in the middle-east to continue. "Terrorists" want foreigners out of their homeland, why would they do this attack if it will only keep British troops there?


Clearly the terrorists are not from Iraq.

quote:Originally posted by eagleclaw364
You noob, I was making a spelling correction. :D


oh no really ? it's like I didn't know

x_x

I can't say that I'm truly sympathetic to those dead people. Out of the 146,000 deaths today, terrorism was not even worth mentioning. Not in the face of cancer, drunk driving and work-related injuries. Not even when compared to the self-heating coffea cup.

If you're about to say something rebellious or patriotic... go ahead and shove it. You don't do volunteer work in South Africa. You don't donate your life savings to the needy. All you can do is blame other people and hand out tea to mortified bystanders when conscience screams in your face.

Maybe you do buy a pink sticker for the bumper of your car. Perhaps you're one of those humble men who feeds soup to homeless vets. Hell, maybe you are defending helpless Iraqis right now in the "front lines". Who are you trying to suck up to? Them or yourself? You're not any f*ing saint in my eyes. If you'd die for your country you'd be dead already. Get a move on and save me breath.

I don't think its the fact of that they died, I think it was how they died.

Ben, the subject matter has changed since the first post. Mickle wanted the terrorist attack told from the forumer's standpoint. Before anybody told him how the victims died, an angry britishman asked him to find his story elsewhere (google?). Then Hitman brought up his idea of Bush's relevance in the situation. Nearly everything except, of course, spam changed from that point on to how the UK would deal with it's situation. My post was about the many other more pressing matters that could be solved instead of illegally declaring war on an organization.

PopeJohn, if you don't care about the 50 people dead from the bombings, then you can't honestly say that you care about anyone's death. Not from cancer, not from drunk driving, and not from work related injuries while donating your life savings to people in South Africa.

In fact, since you don't care, don't go around insulting people who do, because people who do care are actually human.

PopeJohn, you dont seem to help anyone either.

I'm gonna ignore the blasphemous Pope and inform you that the number of confirmed deaths has risen to 52.

quote:Originally posted by VijchtidoodahPopeJohn, if you don't care about the 50 people dead from the bombings, then you can't honestly say that you care about anyone's death. Not from cancer, not from drunk driving, and not from work related injuries while donating your life savings to people in South Africa.

In fact, since you don't care, don't go around insulting people who do, because people who do care are actually human.


When you say human, do you mean "flawed"? I'll very gladly say that I was pointing out human error in your silly logic. Anybody can stand back and say "oh my god, how horrible". I'm sure many a man is reassuring those around them that terrorists won't change their life one bit. Meanwhile subway traffic is down in Britain, and smucks like you smack down anybody who see the idiocy of it all. A caller on BBC tries to tell others his theory of how the war inspired bursts in Al Qaeda recruitment, and he is swiftly taken off air while told his opinion is not needed.

Now Vicht, about me: Regardless of what you may think, I'm human too. I knew people who have since died. Sure, I am not the type who cries, but I do care. In place of mourning and tea cups is logic (perhaps anger as well). My sympathy only goes so far. It ends when the taboo, "hands off", treatment of deaths get in the way of the facts of life.

What I want you to understand is that there are more important things to carry on about than terrorist activities. Out of all the cruel and violent acts in the world, media (successfully) focuses your attention on the death of ninty people on a island in northern Europe. If you're so set on not letting terrorists "win" then I'm sure you'd carry on with your life. You would let jokes be told and reasoning manifest itself.

I am very critical of people who won't let others live beyond death; Those who call others "blasphemous", while they are no saint themselves. "Practice what you preach" goes a long way with honorable living.

All I see in that post above is a series of incomplete thoughts. If you want to reassure yourself that you know best, keep it that way and nobody will be able to pin down a point to argue against; but if you actually care about the topic of your rant (whatever that may be), then clarify your statements so that we can understand exactly what you're saying.

Okay, I'll walk you through my line of thought. You?d need to understand one tier before I continued, or you would not be able to understand at all.

First, emotion drives logic. You act on emotion and this creates some sense of goals and logical analysis to accomplish your emotional-driven end. Second, emotion gets in the way of logic. You might have an affair with your sister-in-law, despite the possible effect of ruining a stable relationship with your wife. Conclusion: emotion is not logical. They mix like oil and water. One decision based on emotion can not deserve more merit than the other, because they are both innately flawed.

Now, being human, I have emotions. They are not very clear, but I?ll try to explain them. There are some people I do not want to die, and others that I would laugh at the thought. Deaths of people not affecting me directly fall in a category in-between. You and I both play at the idea and guess what would be the moral way to react. From what I?ve seen, you prefer not to find a cause, but rather mourn the deaths. My first reaction is that you have every right to do so, up until the point when you insult people who choose not to do the same. You?ve already told Hitman and flab that they are merely ?common foot soldiers?, not wise enough to feel the pain and death that just occurred. You also just insulted everyone who would choose to find answers and discuss the matter instead of being empathetic to the deaths and living in unknowing frustration.

Vijct, you knew I was talking about you from the start. You took my post to heart and responded quickly and with anger. I expected you to try and tell me you couldn?t understand my point. It?s common to act ignorant. Keep it up, people will eventually shuffle forward and admit their ignorance too.

Aside from the rest, I am not really an angry person. I lied. I even chuckled when I posted. A number of people responded with hostility without interpreting what I meant. All they see are the swearing and anger, and they take it as a personal affront. Those same people see a dead pope rolling across the TV screen and weep because they need to fit in. Instinct really, if you?ve ever gotten into the niche of academics called psychology. It takes strong will to negate that potent stuff.

I do hope that I look like a monster by this point.

You're making undue assumptions and contradictory statements, although I think the latter is just the result of a lack of communication skills. I'm still missing the unifying point and I don't even think there is one. However, if there is some hidden purpose to your posts other than an attack on my character, I'll do my best to debate with you.


"...emotion drives logic...emotion gets in the way of logic...emotion is not logical."

I don't see what that has to do with the rest of your post as any cohesion is lost because you don't refer back to whatever original point you had. But let me say this: emotion does not drive logic. Logic is exactly what it is for the specific purpose that morals, ideals, and emotion do not drive it. It is only when we are being emotional that illogic appears logical, which I believe may have been your second statement and leads to your third.


"From what I?ve seen, you prefer not to find a cause, but rather mourn the deaths."

I know the cause as do all of us: fiery explosions and shrapnel. I also care about the motives behind the attacks and the causes of those motives (which, I believe, is what you really mean) as I have already stated. However, I am more concerned with the people who died than arguing about how much I hate the current government.


"My first reaction is that you have every right to do so, up until the point when you insult people who choose not to do the same."

The only person I've insulted in this entire thread was you after you stated that you weren't sympathetic to the people who died. And don't expect me to retract that insult because I'll continue to believe that anyone who doesn't care about the people around him is inhuman.


"You also just insulted everyone who would choose to find answers and discuss the matter instead of being empathetic to the deaths and living in unknowing frustration."

No. In fact, the argument had nothing to do with finding answers or even discussing the matter; it had noisily devolved into an attack on anyone who didn't have the same ideals as the people arguing. Any real discussion would have involved some degree of listening, but, as it were, there was none.


"Vijct, you knew I was talking about you from the start."

That's news to me. I thought you were just trying to get attention, and it seems I was correct.


"I expected you to try and tell me you couldn?t understand my point."

Then you should have made yourself clear. Being a lousy writer is ignorance, being unable to understand one is not. Even with this supposed clarification, I still have no idea what your previous post was about.

I'm not going to bother with the last paragraph and sentence. Even through the cloud that you've formed, I can still see that you're trying to justify yourself. Don't.

Now try to make a post that actually has a point.

Okay, I'll walk you through my line of thought. You?d need to understand one tier before I continued, or you would not be able to understand at all.

My point takes prior knowledge to understand

First, emotion drives logic. You act on emotion and this creates some sense of goals and logical analysis to accomplish your emotional-driven end. Second, emotion gets in the way of logic. You might have an affair with your sister-in-law, despite the possible effect of ruining a stable relationship with your wife. Conclusion: emotion is not logical. They mix like oil and water. One decision based on emotion can not deserve more merit than the other, because they are both innately flawed.

You must first realize this of our actions; you can not judge one above another, for they meet equally illogical ends.

Now, being human, I have emotions. They are not very clear, but I?ll try to explain them. There are some people I do not want to die, and others that I would laugh at the thought. Deaths of people not affecting me directly fall in a category in-between. You and I both play at the idea and guess what would be the moral way to react. From what I?ve seen, you prefer not to find a cause, but rather mourn the deaths. My first reaction is that you have every right to do so, up until the point when you insult people who choose not to do the same. You?ve already told Hitman and flab that they are merely ?common foot soldiers?, not wise enough to feel the pain and death that just occurred. You also just insulted everyone who would choose to find answers and discuss the matter instead of being empathetic to the deaths and living in unknowing frustration.

You and I are not so different. My emotions find different things to be insulting than you.

Vijct, you knew I was talking about you from the start. You took my post to heart and responded quickly and with anger. I expected you to try and tell me you couldn?t understand my point. It?s common to act ignorant. Keep it up, people will eventually shuffle forward and admit their ignorance too.

You understood my post enough to insult me, but told me you couldn't really understand what I was saying.

Aside from the rest, I am not really an angry person. I lied. I even chuckled when I posted. A number of people responded with hostility without interpreting what I meant. All they see are the swearing and anger, and they take it as a personal affront. Those same people see a dead pope rolling across the TV screen and weep because they need to fit in. Instinct really, if you?ve ever gotten into the niche of academics called psychology. It takes strong will to negate that potent stuff.

Inspired by instinct? Maybe you can't control yourself not to respond without insulting me.

I do hope that I look like a monster by this point.

I give into emotions like you.

I can't spell it out more clearly. Really, this is exhausting. I've got work. There is one more item I want to talk about, even though you asked me not to justify myself.

I can't say that I'm truly sympathetic to those dead people.

Sorry, my mistake. I would be faking it if I cried about solely these deaths, because my attitude is to excuse smaller incidents in light of a bigger picture. In a sense, I am sympathetic... but in a different manner.

I'll tell you what suppressed images had went through my mind when I think of this. Right now I live with my father. It's because he is very sick with a disease called Lupus. He gets tired a lot. He can't do things he used to. He's lost so much weight. Sometimes I have dreams of him withering away and dying. I wake up with these nightmarish images in my head, and sometimes I see this crap on the news about 90 people dying from a bomb. Yes! I get frustrated. There are 335,198 people a year who die from lupus. It's a blue moon when more than a couple thousand die from terrorism. That's a statistic, but the numbers make sense.

Now, wouldn't this have been better if you had asked me what I meant before chancing it... taking my sentence to mean something it could not? I don't usually care if I'm labeled. Sometimes I wonder myself.

You have my respect. Even if you still consider me inhumane and a bad writer. Even though I come out as insulting. Even if we have different mannerisms when dealing with problems.

/me holds out a shaky hand

too much spare time?

Even so, I don't know anyone who died or was injured in the London bombings, but I feel for them. I may not know what its like to be burnt and slashed by shrapnel and flying glass, but I can feel sympathy for the victims and families. I don't give money to starving children in Africa, but I donate my used clothing to St. Vinnies and help in Surf Life Saving Appeals. Not that has anything to do with this, but it doesn't mean I can't care. I'd rather die from old age than being burnt to death in a red can with wheels. I'm sure that many of the victims would prefer death from old age then death by terrorism.

Sorry about your dad, Pope John Paul II.

oh boo-hoo, 146,000 people died and 145,000 weren't publicized. i guess i shouldn't give a (Please refrain from swearing) or show sympathy towards the 50 that did die from a tragic terror accident because despite several organizations and charities helping to feed the poor, the hungry, helping cure cancer, making workplaces safer, improving education, nobody gives a crap about the other 145,000 who died. i guess whenever a death is publicized i should show no sympathy because there are more people i can show sympathy to.

PopeJohn, I understood that post fine, hence my rebuttal; it was the one before it that confused me.
But thanks for the effort, anyway.

I think the main difference between us is that you only feel sympathy either towards someone close to you or to a very large number of people dying; I, on the other hand, feel sympathy towards anyone and everyone who dies with a few exceptions -- those who die naturally, those who die honorably and were content with their life, and those who die doing what they loved.

There's an old belief that you should make every effort to save a life because you aren't just saving one, you're saving one plus an eternity of progeny -- in essence, each life represents the entire world and each life is sacred. I'm not into religion very much, but I believe there is something holy about every life. So it doesn't matter if 10 or 100 people die, what matters is that a life has ended.

I won't dispute the fact that it's worse if 1000 people die, but look at it this way, and stop your natural instinct to classify place people into false groups: each day thousands of people die by unnatural means. Again, it's not the numbers that matter or even the fact that some were killed in a genocide in Africa while others passed away silently from cancer, what matters is that those people will never have a chance to live a complete life.

That's my belief. I don't care whether or not people think the same way (even I try to keep those things from my mind), but what I do take notice of is when people proclaim over the guise of anonymity that they don't care that a fellow human has died. And when someone doesn't care just because they can't see that enough people have died in one event and that they can't directly see the effect of those deaths, when that person has separated themselves from feeling any natural sympathy towards man, when that person has disregarded a basis and necessary human emotion, that person is inhuman.

However, when I called you inhuman I knew that it was a false label. You are human just as much as I because I know that you did feel compassion towards those people, you just aren't able to recognize it in yourself. Or, quite possibly, you know that you felt something for those people but, for some reason you chose to deny those feelings to yourself and/or everyone else.

Edit: While I was composing this, n00bface managed to touch upon the same point, albeit in a much more insulting way. :)

Enesce, taking time to argue morals is not having too much time on your hands. In fact, it's one of humanity's longest standing sciences, if you can call it that.

[offtopic]
What is Vijchtidoodah? I've never heard that one before.
[/offtopic]

quote:Originally posted by n00bfaceoh boo-hoo, 146,000 people died and 145,000 weren't publicized. i guess i shouldn't give a (Please refrain from swearing) or show sympathy towards the 50 that did die from a tragic terror accident because despite several organizations and charities helping to feed the poor, the hungry, helping cure cancer, making workplaces safer, improving education, nobody gives a crap about the other 145,000 who died. i guess whenever a death is publicized i should show no sympathy because there are more people i can show sympathy to.

I wasn't asking anybody to think the same thing as me. My first post stated my opinion and neatly told people who thought my opinion was not worth being looked at to "shove it". If you feel sympathy for those people, by all means, do so.

I think Pope was just trying to remind people that more than 50 people died that day and it would be unfair to ignore the other victims.