Skip Navigation

London Blasts

Travel Forums Off Topic London Blasts

Page 1 ...

Last Post

81. Posted by Isadora (Travel Guru 13926 posts) 11y

Quoting tway

Quoting Blitz198

Complete freaking idiots. They're deranged and all deserve to die. I'm not usually the "violence is the answer" type of person, but I do think they all just need to be blown up. That goes for saddam hussien too.

As an aside, I saw the movie Downfall a little while back - about the last days Hitler and his entourage spent in their bunker, as the allies were winning the war around them. It showed the 'human' side of Hitler - that he wasn't a monster, but a man. When talking about Hitler, Sadaam Hussein, Bin Laden, etc., I think we have to keep in mind that they weren't born evil incarnate. They are not sick, twisted monsters - as that would imply they have no choice but to do evil. That would mean their "disease" was in control of their actions, and it would erase them from blame.

Instead, they are human beings - like you and I - who made a conscious choice to hurt other human beings. They have the capacity and the ability to CHOOSE. They are mentally stable and legally sane. And they've chosen to impose their beliefs and sense of hierarchy on the world and do harm to their fellow man. We can't whitewash them with the "monster" label. They are as guilty as any other legally sane person who's killed another human being for their own benefit.

The term ego-maniacal, rather than monster, seems more fitting. And, Tway is quite right - they are sane. They can try to hide behind their religious, political or even personal beliefs, but not behind insanity.

82. Posted by Travel100 (Travel Guru 1556 posts) 11y

Excellent point Tway. They are not monsters at all but EVIL human beings who choose to cause the tremendous suffering that they inflict.

I want to see the movie Downfall. Is it on DVD yet? Is it in Germen?

83. Posted by tway (Travel Guru 7273 posts) 11y

Quoting Travel100

Excellent point Tway. They are not monsters at all but EVIL human beings who choose to cause the tremendous suffering that they inflict.

I want to see the movie Downfall. Is it on DVD yet? Is it in Germen?

I'd be careful with the good/evil label too, though. They can be kind to their kids, for example, and even Mother Theresa wasn't perfect. One is not all good, nor all evil. I'm not sure what you call them, although I think Isa's label of "ego-maniac" fits pretty well. They are people who's egos are so large they truly believe they have the right to surplant other people's rights. I understand the point you're trying to make, though, Jeff.

I don't know if Downfall is out on DVD yet - but I saw it with subtitles. It was excellent - you start to feel bad for the man, then realize the bigger picture. It was an odd feeling. It made me think.

84. Posted by Travel100 (Travel Guru 1556 posts) 11y

I think that "Islamic Fundamentalist Extremists" are this centuries Nazis. I not sure how to do it, but I do beleive they need to be eliminated just as the Nazis were. And ealier is better. It would have been much better to stop the Nazis in the late 30's than in the early 40's.

85. Posted by Travel100 (Travel Guru 1556 posts) 11y

Quoting tway

I'd be careful with the good/evil label too, though.

Another good point. I've seen similar movies, where you see the human side of people. And it definitely makes you relate to the people as regular human beings. However, call me mean if you want, but I'm happy Hitler was killed and would be happy to see the present day terrorists killed (even if they are kind to their dog & Mother, and kids)>

86. Posted by Travel100 (Travel Guru 1556 posts) 11y

Actually they don't have to be killed, but eliminated from society, so they can't cause any more harm.

87. Posted by tway (Travel Guru 7273 posts) 11y

That's a tough one, Jeff. My first reaction was "What about the fundamentalist religious right here in North America?" - the people who advocate killing doctors that perform abortions, or who influence the way laws are created so that these laws reflect THEIR religious beliefs?

Religion in both cases is being used as anexcuse - something to hide behind, as someone pointed out. It's cowardly and easy. The Nazi's weren't religious but rather "racist" (for lack of a better term) - so the distinction is much more cut and dry. I find it misleading to equate terrorist to religion.

On a side note, I was just talking to a colleague about Africa and their debt and the dictators who will probably not allow funds to trickle down to the people. Plus Haiti and their terrible civil war, and the genocide in Rwanda. If London is bombed or the US is attacked or Spain or Canada or any first-world country falls under the terrorist scope, then we get up in arms. But third-world countries?

I think that's the point someone was trying to make here. Not that London should look at itself to see what it did wrong, but rather that we should all stop and think about why one terrible thing spurrs us to take action, while another barely captures our attention before we flick the channel again.

88. Posted by tway (Travel Guru 7273 posts) 11y

I realize, by the way, that I'm playing semantics a bit here - but, back to my original point, I really do think we should think about and truly understand the words and phrases that governments and the media spew out. When we take and accept them at face value, we sometimes fail to see what's really behind those words. What does fighting for freedon mean? What does the war on terror mean? Why would Iraq/Afghanistan even want democracy in the first place? It's our duty to dig deeper and question.

89. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 11y

Travel100 - I liked the point you made on war. At what point does one realise that negotiation is out of the question and war is the only way to solve the problem. The point in case, World War Two.

If the nations that fought did not come forward, what would the world be like. Would we all be under the rule of the local Nazi Party? Would we learn of the fantastic expoits of Adolf during his victory over the world?

Perhaps the some 60 million people that were killed would have lived and carried on with their lives? Perhaps we would all still be working at jobs that we hate to buy the junk we don't need?

Indeed the flags would be different, but we would still be fed lies by the media. Run by governments we don't elect and have a general disconcern for the world as a whole. The only result of the war was death. The only result of any war.

Through out the history of Homo Homo Sapiens we have been killing anything that stands in our way. Starting with the neanderthals we have pressed our will and beliefs on others - to fatal ends. History is written by the winners, with a certain flair for making the losers sound evil.

My point being - we would live in the same world full strife and ignorance no matter the victor. Find peace not in the world but within yourself.

Great posts everyone!

90. Posted by Travel100 (Travel Guru 1556 posts) 11y

Good points everyone. Unfortunately, I don't think that London, madrid, Bali, etc. have prompted us to take Action. Granted the media doesn't really care about the Sudan, Rwanda, etc.. That's, unfortunately, because the mass of people watching this media, don't care. The media is a business and they show the people what they what to hear about. Natalie Halloway is one missing girl and it's been cable news on every night for 6 weeks. During the same time I don't think I've seen one piece on the genocide in the Sudan.

As far as religion is concered, it has lead to more wars, death, and destruction than any idology ever created by man kind.

As far as the Nazis are concerned, had Hitler and his Nazi followers been eliminated in the 1930's perhads that would have saved 50 million lives. Sometimes action is taken too late.

War is unbeliveably horrible! It would be nice if everyone had a nice Buddhist, non-violet approach to the World. It certainly would be a nicer World to live in.

Page 1 ...

Last Post