Do you really care?

fischerspooner

With the London bombings happening last week, I was just wondering if I was alone in not really caring less if it happened or not? Personally I think they had it coming anyway, as it's the only way the Islamic people can fight back against such a power, and the Islamics have reason to be pissed off with the Brits and especially Yanks right now. 100s of civilians seem to be dying in Iraq each week, in suicide bombs etc., and no one even bats an eyelid. Why is that? Is it because the people are peasants, and not rich westerners like the people killed in the London bombs? When 9/11 happened I thought it was great, that they got a taste of their own medicine. I was living in Canada at the time and all my buddies there too thought the same. Also when American soldiers are killed in Iraq, it makes me feel good that the Iraqis aren't letting them away with it. I'm just being honest here, I know if any of this effected me personally I'd have a totally different viewpoint.

KTRIC

STFU , how could you say such a thing. Are you just trying to incite an argument ??

Riamfada

I can see the point you are trying to make. If not a little crude. Try to rephrase or delete it

The_B_Man

u seem to be pickin sides. ur sayin its terrible whats goin on in Iraq, so oviously u hav a sense of right or wrong, so why cant u admit that the bombs in london were bad? the ppl who were hurt in london probably hav never even been anywhere near Iraq. they were bombed because somebody representing their country did some stuff that they didnt even agree with! it would be like you gettin abuse hurled at you because Daniel O' Donnell wont retire!

whiskeyman

I kinda understand your point, but you have to rephrase immediately as you've made a balls of stating it in correct terms. (esp saying "I thought it was great")
It is very inciteful and very disrepectful otherwise.

Scarinae

Yes, I care. It was ordinary people who were targeted, not the people who are making decisions about Iraq. A lot of the victims weren't even British - there were Australians, Poles and possibly an Irish person among them, along with the British people

fischerspooner

well no I really did think it was great when america was attacked. That's just how I felt. And I really wish that plane had hit the white house. Now don't start with all this "troll" nonsense, I'm just stating how I felt. I bet there's lots of people out there who felt the same.

conky_05

fischerspooner wrote:

With the London bombings happening last week, I was just wondering if I was alone in not really caring less if it happened or not? Personally I think they had it coming anyway, as it's the only way the Islamic people can fight back against such a power, and the Islamics have reason to be pissed off with the Brits and especially Yanks right now. 100s of civilians seem to be dying in Iraq each week, in suicide bombs etc., and no one even bats an eyelid. Why is that? Is it because the people are peasants, and not rich westerners like the people killed in the London bombs? When 9/11 happened I thought it was great, that they got a taste of their own medicine. I was living in Canada at the time and all my buddies there too thought the same. Also when American soldiers are killed in Iraq, it makes me feel good that the Iraqis aren't letting them away with it. I'm just being honest here, I know if any of this effected me personally I'd have a totally different viewpoint.

Great attitude you have there mate. I hope you aren't close to anyone who was either maimed or killed in the atrocity. The main reason it's so shocking (although unfortunately not that surprising) is because it's so close to home and due to the links we've forged with London and the UK in general. It's only natural because of our close political and geographical proximity, if you can't see that you're a fool.

fischerspooner

does anyone care about the 26 children killed in Iraq (either today or yesterday not sure)??? Will the president be signing a book of condolences? Will the G8 leaders be making sympathetic speeches about it??? Most certainly not!!!

TerrorFirmer

Grimes wrote:

I can see the point you are trying to make. If not a little crude. Try to rephrase or delete it

Crude yes, but at least he's making a valid point that although perhaps insensitive, is totally true.

Deep down alot of us think the US had it coming with their more or less gung ho foreign policy and self instated "Greatest country ever" crap.

No one wanted people to die, but for every american soldier/civilian killed how many dozen Iraqis?

Anyway, I wouldnt say i didn't care about the London bombing - in fact, it made me feel horrible for all those who have lost family members, and at the sheer vunerability of inoocent people.

Still though, you get what you give, and the UK and US are lucky they are only getting a minute fraction back of the damage and mayhem they dish out.

BigEejit

OP is a twat .. rarely have I come across such idiocy ... 52+ innocent civilians had it coming???? ... :mad:

aphex™

How does going after random innocent people do their cause any good? They were living the same life as the people they killed, except they went to a different church. They use the same oil from Iraq. They killed their fellow muslims. Complete hypocrites.

I don't see how londoners had it "coming to them". You would think they would go after Bush or Blair. But no they had to be cowards......

Also Iraqi's arent killing soldiers in Iraq, nutcases from Syria are. They don't even come from the same country ffs. Wake the **** up.

Raiser

There you are with all your shallow reasoning trying to make your retarded point.

If they blew your family into 66 pieces while they were on their way to work just because of a comment Bertie Ahern made that didn't sit well with them would you "care"?

* Oh and I see your point - theres mainly EVIL people working in the White House who torture Iraqi babies and don't have families or friends or lives.

I hope you're just too young to understand, I hope you still sulk when your mom gives out to you and slam the door when your dad won't let you play nintendo.

Grow up and develop sensibility and empathy and a sense of justice.

fischerspooner

By STARTING WARS in Afghanistan and Iraq, TONY BLAIR AND GEORGE BUSH put their OWN PEOPLE at risk, THEREFORE they had it coming. Not their fault, their leader's fault.

Selik

conky_05 wrote:

Great attitude you have there mate. I hope you aren't close to anyone who was either maimed or killed in the atrocity. The main reason it's so shocking (although unfortunately not that surprising) is because it's so close to home and due to the links we've forged with London and the UK in general. It's only natural because of our close political and geographical proximity, if you can't see that you're a fool.

Sorry this is actually my post I was accidentally logged in as my mate he must've been posting earlier...

zoro

aphex&#8482 wrote:

How does going after random innocent people do their cause any good?

I don't see how londoners had it "coming to them". You would think they would go after Bush or Blair. But no they had to be cowards......

While not wanting to stir the broth any more than the OP did - he did make some valid claims, albeit in an inciting way ...

As I see it, the attackers in london didn't see innocent people as you put it. It's war. A war justified by the US and the UK.
In war, there are no innocent bystanders. The UK went into that war holding hands with the US - who can say how many INNOCENT iraqis were killed during the war? Are you suggesting that not a single one was hurt or killed?

I think we can all agree that neither bush nor blair cared if their selected airstrike targets housed innocents as well as militants. They'd hit it anyway saying they're all "sympatisers".

A group of fanatics don't have the manpower or armaments to take on a military target, so they hit what they can.


And while londoners themselves may not have had it coming to them, the UK certainly did. War is fought on 2 fronts - home and away. It really was simply a matter of time until the home part came about.


I'm not saying what happened was good - but it certainly was inevitable.

Raiser

Have you ever heard of deductive reasoning?

You posted the original message because you don't care - you wondered why(?)
- You put forward unintelligent and nonsensical arguments.
- I had wondered if you were a child - but you live in Dublin and Scotland - and are most likely 18+ (and should know better)
- You indicated that bombings were justified as it was their leaders fault - despite the fact that their leaders weren't bombed(?)

Through this reasoning process I can deduce that you do not care for any other reason other than the fact that you my friend are a 24 carat W*nKer.

Theres no charge for this service

aphex™

fischerspooner wrote:

By STARTING WARS in Afghanistan and Iraq, TONY BLAIR AND GEORGE BUSH put their OWN PEOPLE at risk, THEREFORE they had it coming. Not their fault, their leader's fault.

So why not attack the leaders? What had the random people got to do with it? You didn't give a reason why random people should go and blow up their country men in London there.

fischerspooner

I do not think it was a good thing in the UK, I don't think what is happening in Iraq is a good thing. I'd say I'm like any other man, the only people I care about are my friends and family. Why should I care anymore about that relatively small occurance in London than what happens in Iraq etc.? I don't think any of you lose any sleep or care about suicide bombers in those places, why in London? I have no connections with london, maybe you do I don't know.

aphex™

zoro wrote:

In war, there are no innocent bystanders. The UK went into that war holding hands with the US - who can say how many INNOCENT iraqis were killed during the war? Are you suggesting that not a single one was hurt or killed?

Eh yes there are innocent bystanders. Ever heard of a War Crime? Thats when you go after innocent people. If 1 or 2 londoners were killed while they attacked parliment, then that would be an unfortunate but different thing.

All innocent Iraqis killed by the US are bystanders during operations to kill enemy fighters who are attacking US soldiers. They don't just go into the street and blow the **** out of a crowd.

zoro

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Eh yes there are innocent bystanders. Ever heard of a War Crime? Thats when you go after innocent people. If 1 or 2 londoners were killed while they attacked parliment, then that would be an unfortunate but different thing.

All innocent Iraqis killed by the US are bystanders during operations to kill enemy fighters who are attacking US soldiers. They don't just go into the street and blow the **** out of a crowd.

About the innocent bystanders: Yes I understand your point, and do agree with you. But I also see the flipside of the coin, Iraq is at war with the UK and US. Not with the UK/US army, with the country.
It would be simple for them to justify their actions by stating that they simply targeted UK people.
Again, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just trying to help an actual argument to form here by stating another side of the story.



And any civilian deaths are terrible, but ignoring their occurance as "unfortunate" is ridiculous. Either you dont care if they die, or you do. There's no middle ground here ...

guest31

To the OP, your argument is flawed ... you give out about the lack of sympathy for Iraqi innocent civilian deaths, and then show your happiness at US/UK innocent civilian deaths ... so you are being biased towards Iraqis yourself, well welldone for being guilty of what you claim most of us in the West are ... i.e. taking sides.

You are very observant to note that there's more coverage about the London bombings than the Iraqi bombings ... I wonder why ? They are our neighbours, both in physical proximity and personally ... of course we are going to hear more about it. Does it mean a British life is worth more than an Iraqi life, NO, but I do feel closer to British people than Iraqi people, because we live our lives generally in the same way ... share sporting interests, culture, language. I identify with westerners in a way that I couldn't identify with Middle Eastern people... that's just the way it is.

I won't jump on the bandwagon in blaming Blair and Bush .... these are fanatics who have planned atrocities for years and just use the Iraq war as an excuse. At the end of the day, all war is wrong, and yes, I do care very much about any innocent lives that are taken in the process.

As you admitted yourself, imagine if it was your mother or father or brother or sister or friend that was blown up, you waved goodbye to your loved one in the morning and never saw them again .... it's too sad a thought for me to even bear... and you?

fischerspooner

i never said I was happy about UK deaths. At the time of 9/11 however, I thought it was pretty cool, I don't know why, maybe I'm sick in the head or something, I thought I was normal. I just thought it was good to see American getting woken up. I didn't care about the innocents who died. The same way I couldn't care less about the people killed in the tsunami, which I'm sure none of you care about either, whatever you may say. Cmon be honest here.

aphex™

zoro wrote:

About the innocent bystanders: Yes I understand your point, and do agree with you. But I also see the flipside of the coin, Iraq is at war with the UK and US. Not with the UK/US army, with the country.
It would be simple for them to justify their actions by stating that they simply targeted UK people.

Iraq is not at war with anybody. A fer insurgants from Syria are bombing the place, they are at war with them. The elected government in Iraq is not at war with the US/UK. They are fighting insurgents who wage war against innocent civilians. Many of whom are trying to secure their country by joining the police force but get blown up anyway.

zoro wrote:

And any civilian deaths are terrible, but ignoring their occurance as "unfortunate" is ridiculous. Either you dont care if they die, or you do. There's no middle ground here ...

I would care. But atleast the target would have been closer to those responsible for the war. It would mean the bombers had made a vague attempt to justify their actions. People would know where to stay away from then.

aphex™

fischerspooner wrote:

I couldn't care less about the people killed in the tsunami, which I'm sure none of you care about either, whatever you may say. Cmon be honest here.

Yeah thats why Irish people gave millions to help the Tsunami relief efford. C'mon i'm being honest here.

aphex™

fischerspooner wrote:

I do not think it was a good thing in the UK, I don't think what is happening in Iraq is a good thing. I'd say I'm like any other man, the only people I care about are my friends and family. Why should I care anymore about that relatively small occurance in London than what happens in Iraq etc.? I don't think any of you lose any sleep or care about suicide bombers in those places, why in London? I have no connections with london, maybe you do I don't know.

I didn't loose sleep about the London bombing. I don't loose sleep about the bombings in Iraq either. I still think they're done by crazed lunatics and hypocrites and are totally unjust.

You and a few posters are clearly worried about how the London bombings get more headlines. Thats all you seemed worried about. All i can say is that if this was the 50th london bombing in a month and you were watching Al-Jazeera you'd hardly hear about it. So quit moaning. Some news editors choice of where to stick a n news story does not reflect public opinion or mean people don't care.

zoro

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Iraq is not at war with anybody. A fer insurgants from Syria are bombing the place, they are at war with them. The elected government in Iraq is not at war with the US/UK. They are fighting insurgents who wage war against innocent civilians. Many of whom are trying to secure their country by joining the police force but get blown up anyway.

A valid point - sorry for the confusion.
That said, Iraq's former leader, and those loyal to him would hit back at the US/UK.
While there would be some "band wagon" jumping going on from other nations, such as those Syrians that are using the situation to wreak havoc, I really do doubt that every single person loyal to Saddam has shut up shop and repented in the way of the West, or otherwise captured.

I would care. But atleast the target would have been closer to those responsible for the war. It would mean the bombers had made a vague attempt to justify their actions. People would know where to stay away from then.

But the mere presence of enemy forces isn't enough reason to bomb the cr*p out of the location. If they had set up in a busy civilian area, that had a massive concentration of innocent bystanders, there would still be the order for an airstrike.
Where would you draw the line on an acceptable number of unfortunate deaths? 2? 3? 30? 100?


Again - I'm only trying to create a constructive argument here

fischerspooner

yes I gave money too, but I didn't feel sad or anything over it, most of us probably just gave money out of guilt. The church used to sell indulgences, people thought they could buy their way to heaven. It's the same thing, rock stars probably feel guilty about their over indulgent lifestyles. What do they do? Live 8. Everything's better now, they can sleep at night.

John R

fischerspooner wrote:

I do not think it was a good thing in the UK, I don't think what is happening in Iraq is a good thing. I'd say I'm like any other man, the only people I care about are my friends and family. Why should I care anymore about that relatively small occurance in London than what happens in Iraq etc.? I don't think any of you lose any sleep or care about suicide bombers in those places, why in London? I have no connections with london, maybe you do I don't know.

The irony that it is just that attitude by the American population and to a lesser extent the British that has allowed Bush and Blair carte-blanche in Iraq is obviously lost on a fuktard like you.


I guess by your standards you are a perfectly legitimate target for these attacks because Bertie let the US military use Shannon to re-fuel.

aphex™

zoro wrote:

A valid point - sorry for the confusion.
That said, Iraq's former leader, and those loyal to him would hit back at the US/UK.
While there would be some "band wagon" jumping going on from other nations, such as those Syrians that are using the situation to wreak havoc, I really do doubt that every single person loyal to Saddam has shut up shop and repented in the way of the West, or otherwise captured.

Well i'm sure they'll have been shot by now. Saddam's loyal friends were in the BATHE party and they wrecked havok on everybody who wasn't in the club. Some of them were in Saddam's army and died. Others fled or were shot after the spate of lawlessness which gripped the country after the invasion. Locals would have gone after them like lynch mobs.

zoro wrote:

But the mere presence of enemy forces isn't enough reason to bomb the cr*p out of the location. If they had set up in a busy civilian area, that had a massive concentration of innocent bystanders, there would still be the order for an airstrike.
Where would you draw the line on an acceptable number of unfortunate deaths? 2? 3? 30? 100?

They would do it at night when less people are around firstly. Then people would stay away. You wouldn't have that amount of casualties..Just like during WW2 you knew where you stood if you spent the night in westminster. You'd be ****ed. But you know you're ok if you aren't near any government offices or whatever (less likely to get a direct hit to your house).

Thats what i'd call hitting legitimate targets. But of course these bombers werent legitimate soldiers. Just hypocrites living the same life as those they blew up.

All deaths are unfortunate.

stevenmu

A lot of the innocent civilians being killed in Iraq are being killed in attacks by islamofascist terrorists in the country. Not only that but innocent Iraqi's are being targetted by these groups. The average coalition soldier walking the streets of Iraq believes that they are there to protect the average Iraqi citizen from these people just as those in the US and England who supported the war believed that it was at least partly aimed at improving Iraq and making it a place where all Iraqis could live in peace and freedom. I'm sure there are those who were just thinking about oil, and they're probably in the position to whisper in some powerfull ears but the majority of people I've talked to about it say they supported it to help Iraqis and to improve their own safety.

I don't think that justifies blowing innocent people up at random.

zoro

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Well i'm sure they'll have been shot by now. Saddam's loyal friends were in the BATHE party and they wrecked havok on everybody who wasn't in the club. Some of them were in Saddam's army and died. Others fled or were shot after the spate of lawlessness which gripped the country after the invasion. Locals would have gone after them like lynch mobs.

For some reason I don't see the war as being over.

If as you say it is only the syrians in Iraq that are causing the hassle, why are there still so many US+UK troops over there? Are they enjoying the sunny weather?
If they know exactly who is causing the trouble, why not go after them directly?

So long as there are still sizeable amounts of troops in a currently occupied (that amount of troops, and a government that has been placed there.... yes I know there were elections) I don't see the war as being over.

They would do it at night when less people are around firstly.

Not every strike into a populated area was done at night.
We've all seen or at least heard of the footage of attacks (both air and ground) being forced in into populated areas during the day.

Then people would stay away.

You say that as if the ones that werent hit in the first attack would know to stay away from now on....

Thats what i'd call hitting legitimate targets. But of course these bombers werent legitimate soldiers. Just hypocrites living the same life as those they blew up.

In a war, all targets can be classified as legitimate targets in some way or another. Take for example the bombing of the london underground, or the madrid trains. The scale of the hassle caused was massive.
The resources needed to control the situation, also massive.
The money spent replacing damaged equipment, clearing streets, rebuilding roads/tracks/walls/foundations.

Economic targets are just as viable as military ones.

All deaths are unfortunate.

Yes they are - so why try to justify them as "They should have known not to be there"?

Selik

fischerspooner wrote:

At the time of 9/11 however, I thought it was pretty cool, I don't know why, maybe I'm sick in the head or something, I thought I was normal.

Yes you are a bit sick in the head spot on there. 9/11 wasn't a bloody video-game you fuphead. Jesus now it's all becoming a bit clearer with you - c'mon, I bet you loved it when you heard the news on Thursday... Maybe not as "cool' as 9/11 for you but pretty cool nonetheless eh? Ah of course they had it coming to them anyway, stupid Londoners. Let's hope something similar never happens on Irish shores of course you would probably say we had it coming to us because of our "Governments" decision to allow US fighter aircraft to stopover and refuel their tanks on the way over to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Idiot.

ionapaul

The OP *must* be a troll. Or a 16 year old. Maybe both.

RoundyMooney

fischerspooner wrote:

i never said I was happy about UK deaths. At the time of 9/11 however, I thought it was pretty cool, I don't know why, maybe I'm sick in the head or something.

Somebody ban this twat... :eek:

guest31

fischerspooner wrote:

i never said I was happy about UK deaths. At the time of 9/11 however, I thought it was pretty cool, I don't know why, maybe I'm sick in the head or something, I thought I was normal. I just thought it was good to see American getting woken up. I didn't care about the innocents who died. The same way I couldn't care less about the people killed in the tsunami, which I'm sure none of you care about either, whatever you may say. Cmon be honest here.

Have you read any of the stories about those that have been killed .. or listened to it on the tv/radio ... for me, that's when I really feel it. At first when news like this comes in and all you hear are numbers, it's hard to feel anything. But if you hear about the young hairdresser on his way to work, the Finance Manager who took the bus because the tube had been evacuated, Mothers, sons, how can you say you don't care about them ... do you not value human life , and see the tragedy in that having been taken way from loved ones ... it could be you one day the way things are going ... it makes me be very thankful to be alive. I find it hard to understand how you can't feel for these people (maybe you're just messing) .. they are our brothers and sisters.

fischerspooner

why ban me? I know many people who were delighted when the USA were attacked. I'm talking head over heels happy. And these are middle aged respectable gentlemen. I'm not 16. I'm 25 and I work for your government.

Sleepy

It could be argued that by re-electing Blair, the English public gave their seal of approval to the "War on Terror" (stupid fcuking term if you ask me) and as such made themselves legitimate targets in the eyes of those in Afghanistan and Iraq who, let's face it were invaded by foreign countries.

There's very little difference between this and the acts of the IRA/IRB in the early part of last century in Ireland. As far as those involved are concerned they're striking back at their invaders much as we did all those years ago.

I don't condone the suicide bombers acts but I can fully understand them and can see the point that yes, in a way, the British had it coming.

aphex™

zoro wrote:

For some reason I don't see the war as being over.

If as you say it is only the syrians in Iraq that are causing the hassle, why are there still so many US+UK troops over there? Are they enjoying the sunny weather?

They are waiting for the Iraqis themselves to be trained up as police/army personnel so they can secure the country themselves. If the insurgents had never killed 1 policeman, i bet the US & Uk would have left before now.

zoro wrote:

So long as there are still sizeable amounts of troops in a currently occupied (that amount of troops, and a government that has been placed there.... yes I know there were elections) I don't see the war as being over.

The war is over. I don't see any other Islamic nations ganging up to fight the US in iraq... there isn't a cause there. They know the US & UK would have left already if it wasn't for the insurgents

zoro wrote:

Not every strike into a populated area was done at night.
We've all seen or at least heard of the footage of attacks (both air and ground) being forced in into populated areas during the day.

Again, they're attacking legitimate targets. In a recent fight against insurgents (was it fallujah?) all the smart locals fled, they knew that the US would come fighting because the insurgents were hiding in their houses. So they got the hell out.

zoro wrote:

In a war, all targets can be classified as legitimate targets in some way or another. Take for example the bombing of the london underground, or the madrid trains. The scale of the hassle caused was massive.
The resources needed to control the situation, also massive.
The money spent replacing damaged equipment, clearing streets, rebuilding roads/tracks/walls/foundations.

That money is nothing to the UK. They've plenty of it, and if they need more, they'll print more. Sure the value of the currency will go down a bit but who cares. THey wouldn't replace all damaged equipment in war. So bombing innocent people on every tube line isn't going to stop the war effort in Iraq.

You're forgetting war has to be declared for it to be legal. So none of this is relevant.

In international war, its illegal to target civilians. If war was declared they'd stay away from westminster.

Peteee

I'm not even going to attempt to reply, just a quote

"Never try to argue with idiots, they'll take you down to their level and beat you with experience"

aphex™

Sleepy wrote:

I don't condone the suicide bombers acts but I can fully understand them and can see the point that yes, in a way, the British had it coming.

What did the US do to incite terrorism on September 11th?

The talliban is gone. Who cares.
Saddam is gone and there are free elections in Iraq. Brilliant.

What did they do wrong? How did they have anything coming?

If you fully "understand them" could you just explain how attacking 50 people on their way to work furthers their cause...

Selik

fischerspooner wrote:

I'm 25 and I work for your government.

Oh sorry I take back everything I said now... what the hell has that got to do with anything?

simu

I can see why people get involved in terrorism but it's not the answer - it makes things harder, if anything.

However, although I think what happened in London was terrible I don't care on an emotional level because it's something that happened in a huge city in another country. Now, if the same happened in Ireland, I'm sure I'd be quite freaked out. It's impossible to care about all the human suffering on earth at an emotional level - to do so would lead to a life of endless tears. Yet, it's still possible to hold to the principle that such violent acts are unacceptable and should be condemned.

MrScruff

While the OP may have been a little too blunt for some people, I admire his honesty. Resorting to name calling does nothing for your argument. I don't understand why people can't formulate cognitive sentences instead. I just think if we had a little less "fuktards" thrown in and a little more attempt at understanding it might be better.

What did the US do to incite terrorism on September 11th?

hee hee ho ho

6ix

Don't agree at all with the OP, but given the extremist views of these fundamentalists, one can see that the UK provoked it to a certain extent.

They knew themselves it was coming, it was just a matter of time. This does not justify it, but then again how did the civilians killed in Baghdad provoke the bombings at the beginning of this war in Iraq? I'm aware that military targets were hit mainly, but think of the thousands who died as "collateral damage".

They didnt. Unless having oil is provocation.

Imagine if we had oil and Dublin was bombed to bits by UK/US. While the rational among us would not go to bomb the UK/US, a certain percentage of the population would act just like the Iraqi sympathisers.

IMO, one would be naive to think that the UK/US coalition was after anything other than oil. How may other despots/dictators are being let rule without interference?

Mossy Monk

fischerspooner wrote:

why ban me? I know many people who were delighted when the USA were attacked. I'm talking head over heels happy. And these are middle aged respectable gentlemen. I'm not 16. I'm 25 and I work for your government.

you are a ****ing moron

aphex™

6ix wrote:

They knew themselves it was coming, it was just a matter of time.

Yeah, they knew that before the Iraq war, before Afghanistan even.

These muppets just want any old excuse to bomb london.

zoro

That money is nothing to the UK. They've plenty of it, and if they need more, they'll print more. Sure the value of the currency will go down a bit but who cares. THey wouldn't replace all damaged equipment in war. So bombing innocent people on every tube line isn't going to stop the war effort in Iraq.

No it won't stop the effort, but again, war isn't only fought "over there", which is something that the West has literally taken for granted.

You're forgetting war has to be declared for it to be legal. So none of this is relevant.

That just sums this all up - legalities.
A war is a war, regardless of how legal it is. It was illegal for the US to invade iraq, but their declaring war does not negate this and suddenly make it legal.
It's illegal to kill somebody, but soldiers get away with it every day of the week.
I know full well that they have to, and I'm jsut trying to create arguements. Why is is it ok for the US to stockpile weapons of mass destruction, but it's "wrong and illegal" for anyone else to? I'm thinking of Korea, Iraq, and anyone else who may be thinking of it.
Why is it legal for Bush and Blair to order the death of hundreds if not thousands of innocent people a few thousand miles away?

In international war, its illegal to target civilians. If war was declared they'd stay away from westminster.

Those civilians, whether they like it or not, are in a war.
There are no "innocents" in war. There are civilians and military. There are some countries who would steer clear of causing harm to civilians, and others who see them as prey. But both are the enemy, and both can be targetted by either side

Peteee wrote:

I'm not even going to attempt to reply, just a quote

"Never try to argue with idiots, they'll take you down to their level and beat you with experience"

I hope you're not talking about me...

aphex&#8482 wrote:

What did the US do to incite terrorism on September 11th?

As I can't backup my claims with links to quotes or articles .... I'll just say "oh come on"

Mr.Nice Guy

I'm not sure what's worse, the OP's disgraceful comments or the people who actually think he has a point.

Pass the sick bag...

Sarky

You mean you can't understand what he's trying to say? Oh dear.

And for the record, no, I don't really care. Why should I, when the folks living in London have dealt with it and gotten it out of the way and gotten on with their lives in record time?

zoro

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I'm not sure what's worse, the OP's disgraceful comments or the people who actually think he has a point.

Pass the sick bag...

That's some nice addition to the arguement - good going there - keep it up!