London Explosion (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

I do not support any terrorists. All i support is the ligitimate right of ppl to defend their country against occupation. AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT OCCUPATION IS A FORM ON TERRORISM. Revalation right there.

Being kept under a leader they didnt elect is a form of occupation too, SHOCK HORROR!

 

[Meldrum]

I want to know how William Laurie got so much rep so quickly.

 

[Rafy]

AP reports that Scotland Yard was notified moments before the blast

 

[withoutaface]

I would support the liberation of the people of those nations too. I supported the war on Iraq, but not necessarily exclusively supporting that war and not necessarily for the same reasons Bush did.

 

[Meldrum]

Anyone noticed how Tony Blair talks like he's about to cry?

Probably just sexual tension after the bombing cut short his and Bush's romp at G8.

 

[White Rabbit]

...be careful before you start getting into western hysterics and insinuating those who do not steadfastly fall into line are seditious.

Unfortunately you seem not to be able to grasp that the war on terrorism and terrorism is inextricably linked to WHY iraq was invaded. Or perhaps people have forgotten?

------

People also seem to forget that we generally have no regard for civilian life in WAR. Likewise those terrorists feel they are at war. Civilians mean nothing in war. As has been proven by the terrorists and the deaths of iraq civilains.

I understand that - my point is there is fault on both sides, but that by no means justifies attacks on innocent people - On either side. People are too intent on defending terrorists when they are just as bad as Bush. America had her own reasons for going to war, just as the terrorists had reason to attack america. You can not justify one side without justifing the other. Attacking political grounds and specific agenices is one thing, the indiscriminate massacre of innocent people is another. At least thats how I'd differentiated between Al Queda and the IRA.

 

[jm1234567890]

Anyone noticed how Tony Blair talks like he's about to cry?

Probably just sexual tension after the bombing cut short his and Bush's romp at G8.

nah, it was because it was impromptu

 

[tattoodguy]

agranaut, there dead and we cant bring them back so whats the point of worrrying from that perspective.

we should concentrate on the future and how our government will use this to piss away our rights.

just like after 9/11 they gave themselves all these rediculous powers - thats what we should care about.

The real threat to australia is our government and its opppressive laws, not terrorists.

so what if 50 ppple die, we are over populating the world anyways.

 

[AsyLum]

This is not about freedome or morals or ethics or what have you, so please don't try and turn the thread to that.

This is about the attacks in London and has nothing to do with any political fallout that is a direct result from it. 50 people just died and all you seem to care about is how the usual government conspiracy will affect you.

I think the act which put them there is inevitably connected to morals and ethics. It'd be hard to think totally amorally when such an event has happened.

 

[paper cup]

wow 41 people in here
is it because of this thread?

 

[White Rabbit]

I do not support any terrorists. All i support is the ligitimate right of ppl to defend their country against occupation. AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT OCCUPATION IS A FORM ON TERRORISM. Revalation right there.

And where do you draw the line of the right to defend their nation? The indiscrimate massacre of innocents perhaps?

 

[zahid]

I would support the liberation of the people of those nations too. I supported the war on Iraq, but not necessarily exclusively supporting that war and not necessarily for the same reasons Bush did.

Withoutaface, let me ask you a serious question and give me your honest answer. Do you think commiting troops to iraq was in Australias best interest?

 

[AsyLum]

I understand that - my point is there is fault on both sides, but that by no means justifies attacks on innocent people - On either side. People are too intent on defending terrorists when they are just as bad as Bush. America had her own reasons for going to war, just as the terrorists had reason to attack america. You can not justify one side without justifing the other. Attacking political grounds and specific agenices is one thing, the indiscriminate massacre of innocent people is another. At least thats how I'd differentiated between Al Queda and the IRA.

Yes, it is very difficult, if at all possible to defend those who attack innocent targets. It destroys any semblance of justification or 'just' intentions and means to achieve their aim.

Like has been said, its not merely black and white, but a sea of grey.

 

[withoutaface]

wow 41 people in here
is it because of this thread?

No, it's because of that pink elephant on the roof.

 

[zahid]

And where do you draw the line of the right to defend their nation? The indiscrimate massacre of innocents perhaps?

SADDAM = 4000 deaths by gassing
BUSH= 10 000 cilvilians and counting.

 

[Rafy]

This thread isnt entitled Australia's involvment in the Iraq war

 

[ur_inner_child]

agranaut, there dead and we cant bring them back so whats the point of worrrying from that perspective.

we should concentrate on the future and how our government will use this to piss away our rights.

just like after 9/11 they gave themselves all these rediculous powers - thats what we should care about.

The real threat to australia is our government and its opppressive laws, not terrorists.

so what if 50 ppple die, we are over populating the world anyways.

i'm trying to ignore you but obviously you havent had anyone close to you die, lucky you....

 

[withoutaface]

SADDAM = 4000 deaths by gassing
BUSH= 10 000 cilvilians and counting.

That's just the deaths in Kuwait, you haven't taken into account how many of his own people he's killed, both directly and through poorly managing the behaviour of the police etc.

 

[zahid]

i'm trying to ignore you but obviously you havent had anyone close to you die, lucky you....

or perhaps, maybe all his loved ones have died.

 

[zahid]

That's just the deaths in Kuwait, you haven't taken into account how many of his own people he's killed, both directly and through poorly managing the behaviour of the police etc.

excuse me withoutaface but who provided the biological weapons to saddam?