This post wants to say that I do not feel too sad about the London blast, and I feel it's immoral of me to condemn it.

First, I must emphasize that I am opposed to all terrorist activities, but I do not think it's right of me to oppose all such activities. I oppose them only because I care about my and my families' lives, which I think is quite a selfish thought.

Second, if I remove my personal biased feelings about my and my families' lives, I believe that the terrorists would be wrong to attack any nation, except for the US and UK.

Finally, I believe that the only people who are entitled to condemn the recent London incidents are those who were injured or have friends/families who were injured in these blasts.

The Iraq war was supported by the majority of US and UK citizens, without this majority support, those 2 governments would not be able to execute the war. Now you may say "No, Fretz! You are wrong! The majority of citizens do not support the war!". If that's the case, then clearly you just indicated that US or UK's governments do things regardless of majority opinion, but I remember just yesterday people screamed that "we are democracies! We are great countries because our gov'ts listen to our opinions!"

Now, you may say again, "Fretz, there's a bottom line to morality, it's absolutely wrong to kill civillians!". But I think you agree that when your families are threatened by death under the guns of an invader, killing civillains to save your lives is no longer absolutely wrong, right? The Iraqi war has changed the "absoluteness" of moral bottom-lines. If US/UK can shoot bombs into a house in Iraq and kill 20 people, why can't they fight back? Now you say again "But the US are targeting military, civillian deaths are only accidents!!!". Well, how do you like it if the terrorists send a spokesperson in nice suits, and have a news conference, and say "our intelligence shows that there are 5 CIA agents hiding in those UK subways, we apologize for any civillain casualties our operation may have caused, and an investigation is on going." Would that make you feel better?

Now, you may say again "Ok, Fretz, but the terrorists should only target supporters of the Iraqi war, and not everyone!". Well, of all those civillians killed by US missiles, did the US make sure that they were all supporters of Bin Laden and Saddam?

From an abstract view, the death toll of this London blast is roughly the same as the collateral civillian death toll of an US missile strike in Iraq, but those two events should be differentiated by "cause-effect", by "active-passiveness". In WW2, Germany's bombing of London is an evil act, but Allies' bombing of Dresden and Tokyo are considered just acts, even though they have roughly the same civillian death toll. Why? Because those two events are differentiated by "cause-effect", by "active-passiveness", etc. And therefore the "justness" of violence is also differentiated by such standards. From that sense, there's no logical/moral reason to condemn the London blast (except for those with families injured in the blast).

Now, you say "Why don't they target governments instead of civillians, they are cowards!". Well, for the democracy-lovers and Rightists here, do you agree that your country is a democracy, and you are proud to be able to influence and guide your governments' decisions and policies, unlike China? Well, if you say Yes, then when you elect your government, you tacitly supported the government's policies, correct? If that's the case, how can the citizens shirk responsibility for the governments' actions? In Americas case I think it's unfair to Bush as well. Bush can complain , "Hey, it's not like I am Saddam and forcibly started this war, you supported me by electing me twice! Now, you want to say you have nothing to do with it?"

Are they cowards? Well I think saying "they are cowards!" is an easy way to boost your own morale and comfort yourself psychologically. When (most) parents say they are proud of their children, they say it not because of their childrens' actions, but because its their children. So your parents' statement "I'm proud of you" is a misleading statement or a "logically-empty" statement, used to boost your confidence and boost their own confidence. Saying "they are cowards" has the same psychological effect. But in reality, if an American marine is asked to dress up as an Iraqi terrorist, go into a Iraqi market infiltrated with terrorists, strap himself with bombs, and self-explode to kill the terrorists near(with civillian casualties), will he do it? I believe most will not, and would say "it's illegal to ask me to do that." Or "I have families to take care of", or simply make their underwear very wet. Now you say "Fretz! Do not insult our marines! Most marines will be proud to do it!". Well if you say that, then you admit that it's a "proud" thing to do? But you just said that self-bombers killing civillians are cowards!

Finally, I want to say that when the London blast happened, the entire world almost stopped and paid their tributes and sympathies to those killed/injured, and everyone came out and condemned it, and people were sending flowers, writing emotional essays, the news stations offered 24 hour coverage. People even said "Tonight, we are all Londoners". Now, I have no problems with all of those. But let me ask, when innocent Iraqi civillians are killed by a US missile, what do their families get other than "this is a mistake, an investation is on-going" from a single low-level US commander? Does the world stop for their families? Do people send flowers for them? Do we say "Tonight, we are all Iraqis"? Do we even know about the names of those civillians killed? Do you have something to say to those families?

Anyway, I cannot say that I feel too sad about this London blast.

I can see where you're coming from. These attacks were, essentially, an act of a war we started. Still sucks though.

I guess a part of any war is to convince yourself that the enemy is subhuman and therefore they deserve to die but you dont. Look at the Nazis to the Jews or us to the Japanese (and the Japanese to us).

I disagree. The UK might be a democracy but in the last election the voters were given no real choice in opposing the war. Statistics show that the vast majority of people in the UK were opposed to the war, however it's clear that many people have more than one issue to vote on in an election and in any case the left wing major party was the party taking them to war - so to vote for the main opposition meant voting for a more right wing nationalist conservative party.


The fact is that the people killed in the London bombings were innocent people. I am completely opposed to killing people in any circumstances. To justify the bombings based on the wrongs committed by the UK, US, Australia and Poland is to suggest that two wrongs make a right. I cannot disagree more.

If you put things in perspective than clearly the London bombings are much less of an issue than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but that doesn't stop them from being wrong. We should oppose murder be it the murder of one person or 3 million. It still shows a fatal breakdown in politics and diplomacy. I do not believe in nationalism and I consider myself a citizen of the world before I am a citizen of any country. In that spirit I see the London bombings as the killing of innocent people, just as the misguided bombings in Iraq are the killing of innocent people.

Yes the UK are fighting a war and as such they should expect to be attacked - but I am opposed to the war from both sides. I think both morally and tactically terrorism will not be effective - it just hardens the committment of the Coalition and it pushes support away from their cause. If we can learn anything from history, it's that non violent opposition is much more effective and always has been to violent opposition. You look at countries like India, South Africa and the US and you see clearly that violence leads to more violence and peace leads to more peace.

You are an idiot. Innocent lives were at risk, it was wrong.

I heard a leader of some Muslim group (such group that has been banned in other countries) from Sydney, on the radio, saying that suicide bombings are a necessary action under occupation. They saw that the most effective way to bring about the end of occupation was suicide bombing. Whether it's flawed thinking, isn't really the point, but it's the way some extremists think. So, if this is actually the case, then it would be a fair argument to say that the UK is to blame for the terrorist bombings. Therefore, I agree with Fretz, although I'm not saying that the attacks were just or correct.

It doesn't matter what their reasoning is, it's still wrong.

So is the killing of innocent Iraqis and Afgans, but where's their 24hr news coverage? They are all casualties of a war, though if one side does it, it's considered collateral damage, while if the other does it, it's considered to be an evil inhuman act.
I think that's the point that Fretz was trying to make.

Personally, I don't think the US should be doing what they are doing, and nor should the terrorists/insurgents be doing what they are doing...but I doubt either will stop any time soon.

I agree with you, i never said the war was just. However, those casualties are part of the war, we have also lost many troops over there, but these bombings are acts of terrorism on innocent, every-day people. I don't agree with the loses caused by the war either, but i do believe that the Iraqi people would have been a lot worse off if Hussein were allowed to continue as their dictator.

I'm only gonna post here once (b'cos this topic sucks ass).

I feel sorry for the innocent people that died in London. I feel sorry for anyone that dies in a terrorist attack. If the world leaders wanna get something done then "they" should be fighting out there. Not soldiers. If Iraq wants to have bombs, let 'em have 'em. US has bombs, no?? :unsure: Plus, why does the US have to stick a fucking nose into other ppl's business? (Go watch Team America :P )

I hate politicians.

I agree with DZ, this topic sucks nuts.

I think that's a really naive viewpoint to take, you two. The lack of the ability for people to be open-minded & understanding is what started a lot of the trouble in the first place.

I can be open-minded, if needed. There shouldn't be a discussion here, however, both parties are in the wrong.

Why is there no news coverage about the loss in Iraqi lives, and it's only mentioned to be a mistake under invesitagation?

Simple, media propaganda. Any attack on any of our 'allies' is of course going to get far more media attention than attacks in the Middle East. It inspires patrotism, and provides justification for the 'war on terror'.

You'd think that we as humans would learn from history, such wars only lead to more problems, not only the loss of lives, social tensions, economic hardships the list goes on. The question is how do you solve this? The 'terroist attacks' are only going to encourage the US government to further their efforts which is only going to encourage more terroist attacks, indeed it's a zero-sum game (i.e. you either completly win or completly lose) .

That may be true but it's clearly not the fault of the people who died in London. I don't understand how you can oppose the killing of people in one situation - ie. Iraq but not in another. Surely people are the same everywhere and their right to life should be respect in any country in the world - regardless of what different people from that country believe.

I want to say a couple of quick things before I don't come back to this thread. I find that these topics just cause arguments.

1. America shouldn't have gone to Iraq.
2. Targeting civilians specifically is not on, no matter how you look at it.
3. I will never sympathise with terrorists or there attacks.

I love you. You read my mind.

I think some of you have displayed the traits of a humanities major. Humanities majors respond not by if something is sensible according to reason, but how something feels to his/her own psychology, and respond back not with reason, but with large attacks and meaningless statements that are not even comprehensible sometimes. Of course it is not always a bad thing, for example, beautiful and touching novels are always written by humanity majors. I admit that my mind always looks at things very dryly, and I do not have the drama and humor and wits of humanity majors. Therefore I may not be as successful as seducing young girls to be topped. I can simply write "this is good, this is bad, how this is good, how this is bad, what should we do to solve this problem, what should we do to prevent that problem?" I simply wrote something with some reasoning, you may agree or disagree and analyze or discuss the reasoning, but I think some of you want to avoid doing that.

Some people complain that Evo isn't as good as Hyper. Does Hyper have some hack copying and pasting random responses from the internet, while having dictionary.com and thesaurus.com inconspiciously sitting in the toolbar? I THINK NOT!

Or mabye you have become unknowingly accustomed to the level of intelligence over at Hyper?

Nope, he was right.

I feel both Evo and [m]averick should stop being so childish as to try shoot down a capable poster for the sake of him looking at an issue with a more open-minded outlook. If you have a problem with what he's saying, attack the arguement, not the poster. Those little warning counters of yours can go up if the snideness continues.

Thank you.

I am deeply remorseful for my posting habits in this thread Fyussii. Please accept my unconditional apology.

I look forward to it...

:lol:

For fucks sake:

Fyuusii, I think you're trying too hard to be open-minded on this one. I mean seriously most of the 'humanities posts' appeared to be logical to me. I would love to know what Fretz thought was so illogical. Too bad he didn't actually attack the arguments instead of the posters.

Fretz, since you're not a humanities major and love logic so much:

The only reason you wouldn't be in a position condemn the London bombing would be if you didn't originally condemn the Iraq invasion.

Way to support the George Bush! :thumbsup:

Man, I'm totally gonna report this shit to ASIO, then we'll see who doesn't feel too sad!

Hopefully the agent(s) who monitor this place will post regularly ;)

yeah totally. Supporting violence against civillians is supporting violence against civillians regardless of the details.

I think from a less opinionated view the attacks on London were fairly predictable and it's almost certain that more attacks will occur against countries that support the war. Regardless of if you think it's an issue or not - supporting the war in Iraq makes countries terrorist targets.

Personally while I'm clearly opposed to all wars I also really hate the way so many people complain that we shouldn't go to war in Iraq because it makes us a terrorist target. To me that sounds like a selfish and cowardly arguement. It basically means you don't want to help people because it puts yourself at danger. I don't think the war is actually helping people - and that's why I oppose it. But if opposing it meant some people would try and kill me - I'd still oppose it because I have conviction in my beliefs and I'm not going to change them because of somebody threating me. That said if the issue was "people are trying to kill me" then I'd worry about that.

I guess that's the thing about the war in Iraq - the aim of it was actually to try and stop terrorism, yet clearly that's not working at all. You'd have to say that so far they've actually failed in their primary goal completely.

My mum was in London when the attacks happened, if you think in any way I am trying to condone the attacks or any sort of non-humanitarian outlook then I suggest you tweak your thinking pattern.

All I was getting at is that I'm not impressed my [m]averick's attitude towards Fretz and the fact that Evo was condoning a snide 'observation' simply because (at least) Evo holds some form of contempt for this topic and/or the poster. The feelings I have expressed are not relevent to the subject matter in the slightest and I would've said the same thing no matter what the topic was here.

Calm down.

Yeah please post on the topic at hand not on the way people are commenting on the topic at hand or soon we'll be debating about how people commented on the way people commented on the way people commented on the topic at hand and I'll get in trouble for breaking my brothers computer with a plank of wood or something.

I guess related in some way - the thing that really pissed me off was the guy getting shot later. I mean in my opinion it doesn't matter if he's a terrorist or a tourist - shooting a person in cold blood when he's on the ground and two other police are holding on to him should definitly be considered murder. Police should face the same laws as everybody else even when they're on duty and trying to protect people.

I'm a moderator, it's my job here. Otherwise I'd agree entirely with you. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't have posted in here at all. :P

Oh of course, it's not the fault of anyone, and I'm certainly not condoning any of these acts.

Hey I was down to the last 30 people out of 20 places in a year long application process to join ASIO as a generalist Info officer </random trivia>.

On subject though...

If you can't feel sad about the loss of innocent life be it that of a Londoner, Iraqi, Australian, whoever then you're fucked in the head.

`nuff said.

That's like the eightieth time I've heard that. :(

Tell me the one about the goth chick threesome again :D

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a babbler.

Anyway, back on topic,

I'm posting a well-thought out opinion on these attacks, and being perfectly civil in doing so, I am allowed to post this opinion of mine.

In my mind the problem at the root of muslim societies is not their religion, it is the people in control. If you look at the wealth of dictatorships, faux theocracies, and other repressive governments, you'd see that this religious uproar is a perfect cover for the foul and corrupt rulers of these countries to continue doing their business while their otherwise uneducated populace is fed nothing but blind hatred with the excuse of religion.

Open your eyes and look at the world. This is not a religious war, this is the desperation of the corrupt trying to keep their dominions from becoming free of their oppression.

Without referring to just one single aspect of this thread all I can say is that the London bombings were wrong. The terrorists were wrong to do it. It doesn't matter if the US or the UK caused collateral casulties in Iraq. You can't justify violence with violence for fuck's sake it's just wrong.

Let's say I had a family member who was killed in the London bombings. That wouldn't justify me going to Iraq and bombing some place over there and killing more innocent civillians. My emotions may make me do it but it just doesn't justify doing it.

Who cares if someone supported the war in Iraq? Does that mean it's ok for them to die at the hands of terrorists? That we shouldn't condem the slaughter of innocent people because the government of the country in which these innocent people live attacked first? It's just stupid. Revenge is no reason to justify more violence.

Yeah. I like that story better... it ends with success not failure. Though to be honest I'm glad I didn't get that job. They're all a bit... well... weird in ASIO. :P

And yes, mixing church and state is bad mmmkay. :D

Because obviously if western countries (translation: the US) did have more of an influence they'll make stamping out said corruption their absolute highest priority and not say... oil ;)

Unless it's war of course... oh wait, hasn't it already been declared?

No, but you might be able to justify it by figuring that it's the 'just' thing to do.

But that is an incorrect "figuring". That is where these terrorists go wrong, they "figure" it's the right thing to do.

Like Cubeoid said, leave everything out of it and just look at the bombings. Forget the past and what may be the future. There is no way that attempting to murder hundreds of innocent civilians is right. There is no argument here, how CAN it be right?

Of course it can't be right, and I disagree with Fretz for saying so. Just as our bombing of civilians in Iraq isnt right.

However, I cant see how everyone is so puzzled about why they would do it, claiming 'they're full of hate' or some bullshit. Basically, we entered into a war, and now we complain when the enemy launches it's own attacks? Attacking the same people we do, just with different methods? It's wrong, it's sick, it's terrible - but we entered into a war, and that's the way it works. I agree we should be doing our utmost to stop them and we should work to ensure the protection of our citizens, but we need to remember that these terrorists and insurgents follow human nature too, and are probably thinking the same way...

yeah I agree with that statement - I think the actions of the terrorists are just as justifiable as the actions of us bombing Iraq - both actions are a reaction to seeing something that is percieved by the people as wrong - it's clearly not about wanting to destroy our way of life or anything like that. I also think that both us and the terrorists are using our best method of war. The terrorists do not have the money or resources that we have so are forced to use less conventional matters. That said I don't think that war will help their cause much in terms of gaining support in the West where they need it. Equally our war in Iraq is not helping us gain support there - in both situations the people of the place where the wars are getting fought are becoming strongly opposed to the people killing them - this is not surprising. The terrorists best option in my opinion is a non violent campaign using as much energy and planning as they've put into their vioent campaign. The Allies best campaign is to remove the soldiers - pull out and instead send food and aid. Perhaps there will be anarchy and violence for a long time to come with these actions but it will no longer be possible to blame Australia, the US or the Uk for that so much and if the aid is a worthy amount people will become more educated and more willing to persue peaceful methods. It's clear from history that democracy cannot be forced on people and otherthroughing regimes comes from education.


My asio folder just got bigger :)

War has always been this way - the way we got around it in WW2 was through good old fashioned propaganda, and it's happening now too. You make the enemy seem as inhuman as possible, so anything you do can be justified and anything they do, cant. Now we paint terrorists as being this crazed rabble, when in reality theyre probably a really highly-organised group with their own political ties and leanings.

http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.p...lectionid=19296

A good example. Stuff like that makes dropping an A-Bomb or firebombing Tokyo seem okay, but then the Japs attacking somewhere seem inhumane.

/Fascinating insight into human nature.