Tragedy seems to bring out the best and worst of DU...

[youspeakmylanguage]

I was proud and saddened this morning when I logged on to DU. Tragedy seems to bring out the best and the worst among us. I've seen compassion and respect this morning as well as exploitation and disrespect.

The best among us makes me proud to be a part of this online community - we've demonstrated that most of us truly care about all of our fellow men and women regardless of political affiliation and that we can respond respectfully in a time of crisis.

The worst among us would almost cause me to believe some of the Freeper/CU rhetoric - that a small majority of us really do support those that would murder civilians in response to our own misguided foreign policy.

Discuss?

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Nothing much to add. You've said it all very well.

[Lannes]

2. Kick

Glad someone said it.

[Deja Q]

3. Nothing justifies the murder of innocents...

The trouble is, since when has a society's leaders ever been so moral as to NOT sacrifice their own for their own causes? * is hardly original or even innovative in his approach. He just has people willing to follow any fool.

In short, * is no genius at leadership. People are geniuses for wanting to be led.

[zanne]

4. Oh please.

We're just not as emotional as we used to be.

[TwilightZone]

19. That is a very accurate statement, though arguably not a good sign.

Thanks to the media and a barrage of images of death and destruction and a stream of faked terror alerts, many have become quite desensitized to events like this. We tend to think of an event like this as "only" 40 deaths.

I'd argue, though, that that isn't a good thing.

[SmokingJacket]

5. I haven't seen anything that embarrasses me to be here.

People have differing opinions on what our reactions "should" be, but that's a good thing.

Have you really seen any DUers rubbing their hands in glee, eager to exploit this horrible occasion for their own purposes? I sure haven't. Everyone is sickened by this.

[youspeakmylanguage]

9. Here you go...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1610039&mesg_id=1610238

[Bouncy Ball]

15. So that one poster?

Is that what you are talking about?

Because I haven't seen much on DU to be disgusted about today.

:shrug:

[geek tragedy]

24. And this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4036330#4036427

and this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1610039#1610124

Newsflash, people: AQ was trying to kill us infidels LOONNNNGGGG before we invaded Iraq.

[Bouncy Ball]

32. I just read both of those.

What exactly is your problem with them? You disagree that bush has caused an increase of terror in the world???

[geek tragedy]

72. Because they FALSELY portray AQ's actions as responses to US and British

aggression. That's just plain dishonest.

People forget about the Embassy bombings, 911, Bali, etc etc.

[Bouncy Ball]

78. How do you know they are NOT in reaction to US

and British aggression? Huh? You in touch with al-Queda and they told you???

[geek tragedy]

83. Simple. AQ was a terrorist organization LONG before the Iraq

war and has committed several terrorist attacks against people not involved in any kind of imperialism.

[Bouncy Ball]

95. Again, how do you KNOW that this action was NOT

as a result of bush's actions???

Explain that to me. You claim to know it's FALSE that this has to do with Iraq.

How do you know that's false? Just the existence of al-Queda before 2002 doesn't prove that.

Barring someone from al-Queda SAYING "this has nothing to do with bush's foreign policy/the war in Iraq" you DON'T know that.

[frictionlessO]

89. I think the pig headed policy directors on all sides (AQ and US) are

pretty much the same, Ideologue fanatics, that steam roll the innocent to further their own agendas.. which is in no innoncents best interests.

[merh]

73. And we created them and empowered them and armed them

and trained them, then we discarded them when they no longer served our purpose.

What is your point?

[geek tragedy]

88. Simple: that treating AQ's actions as an understandable or legitimate

form of resistance is sick.

[Bouncy Ball]

97. Who is saying their actions are legit?

Where?

[merh]

103. But see, that is not what anyone has posted.

They have opined that the world is not safer under Blair and Bush and that violence begets violence. That you read it otherwise may be a reflection on the emotions you are experiencing as a result of todays bombings. Fear and anger do cause people to feel the need to lash out and lashing out at DUers, though somewhat understandable, is not productive.

Maybe a long walk, a work out in the gym or a round of boxing may help you purge the emotions that cause you to attack others and misread their word. :shrug:

I pray you find peace and understanding. :pals:

[youspeakmylanguage]

29. I'm not going to sit here and link to a bunch of posts...

Follow any thread and you'll eventually find someone who attempts to justify these bombings as some sort of valid guerrilla-like response to our own military misdeeds.

[Bouncy Ball]

34. Oh but you already did.

And that constitutes calling out another DUer.

[youspeakmylanguage]

57. Here is my response...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4036957&mesg_id=4037178

YOU are the ones attempting to start a flamewar. Not me.

[Bouncy Ball]

64. Right, because WE started this thread.

YOU started this thread because you got pissed off about one post on another thread. Which means you ARE calling someone out, and you ARE continuing a flamewar.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bouncy Ball]

76. Shut the fuck up?

Very nice!

So since when was it ok to tell DUers to shut the fuck up?

[youspeakmylanguage]

86. I think all of us have broken a few rules here...

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

[Bouncy Ball]

90. Polite behavioral corrections?

Shut the fuck up is a polite behavioral correction in your mind?

Damn, I'd hate to see what you think a rude behavioral correction is.

[youspeakmylanguage]

94. I was talking about your responses...

...but hey, I'd better not link to anything in particular. Someone might think I'm calling you out.

[Lars39]

42. So alert on them if they are particularly vile.

But you want to showcase what you consider to be the worst of DU at this time.

[Misunderestimator]

46. Follow ANY thread and you'll eventually find someone who offends you.

Happens to me every day. Creating entire threads based on your opinions of a few posters who offend you... what's that about exactly? Judging the entire site by a few posters? :shrug:

[Lars39]

21. You're essentially calling her out & this thread is continuing a flame.

[Bouncy Ball]

23. YEP.

Exactly.

[youspeakmylanguage]

33. WRONG. Someone wanted an example, I provided one...

...without further comment on the original post.

[Lars39]

47. No. You directly linked. THAT is considered calling someone out.

[youspeakmylanguage]

56. Here is the rule...

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

Please explain how posting her message was "calling her out" as opposed to providing an example to another poster as to why this thread was started in the first place. You'd be had pressed to do so without further comment from me indicating that was my intention.

[Lars39]

63. You could have quoted her without her name attatched.

You directly linked.

[youspeakmylanguage]

74. And that wouldn't have been plagerism?

Why don't you sit back and let a mod decide if what I did broke the rules. I'm sure you've already reported me, so sit back with glee and see what happens.

[Bouncy Ball]

80. No it wouldn't have been.

It would have been perfectly acceptable to quote without a name. If someone had demanded a link or name you could have simply cited the DU rules against calling someone out.

It just makes it seem like you started this thread to call someone out.

[youspeakmylanguage]

What you think it "seems" and what I actually wrote are different...

...but why worry about that now?

[SmokingJacket]

That's not my opinion, but she has a point.

The US has killed many thousands of Iraqi civilians, people who, just like the Londoners on their way to work, wanted nothing more than to live their lives in peace. I find nothing exploitative about pointing it out.

I condemn EVERYONE who kills innocent people.

[GiovanniC]

30. That's Not Exactly Hands Rubbing Together in Glee

I believe that poster was saying that

them bombing us = us bombing them
us bombing them = them bombing us

If the US bombs civilians and Al Qaeda bombs civilians, why are we any better than them?

[patrice]

61. Very good point.

"them bombing us = us bombing them
us bombing them = them bombing us"

This is the "war against terrorism"; war has casualties; if it is acceptable for people to die in Iraq, well that's war, so it must be acceptable for them to die elsewhere. Afterall, "we are fighting terrorism", things like this HAVE to happen.

[patrice]

31. I think that is a legitimate question.

If it happens to score political points with someone(s), that doesn't make it any less necessary/essential to ask.

[Misunderestimator]

35. I don't see anything wrong with that post.... it's a valid opinion.

It's not as if that person is saying that we shouldn't feel compassion... just that we ourselves kill many more innocent people on a regular basis in Iraq. This is tragic all the way around, but blaming people for lacking compassion based on a reasonable post that actually exhibits compassion (for our victims) doesn't solve much.

:shrug:

[CWebster]

6. Such as what?

I resent these sweeping condemnations full of non-specific disdain.

[BurtWorm]

Amen.

I don't recall seeing anyone here praising or excusing the murder of civilians in London.

I have seen a lot of tsk-tsking from the sanctimony choir.

[youspeakmylanguage]

13. Check out all of the responses along the lines of...

"Sure, these bombings were horrible, BUT WHAT ABOUT BUSHBLAIRIRAQ..."

They aren't hard to find.

I happen to resent your sweeping condemnation of my thread.

[Bouncy Ball]

20. Uh yeah what ABOUT bush???

Since he started waging his ill-gotten "war on terror," terror has actually INCREASED worldwide and NOT by a little bit, either.

So what, no one here can mention that?

Screw that. I am horribly saddened by the bombings in London and I'm horribly saddened that this happens in Iraq EVERY SINGLE DAY and most of the world hardly yawns.

I'm also sickened that terrorism has increased since 2001, not decreased as bush would have us believe.

Might I remind you this is a POLITICAL forum?

[tyedyeto]

26. That is because 'BUSHBLAIRIRAQ'

is why many of these tragedies happen.

[geek tragedy]

41. Like the embassy bombings, Bali, Tunisia, Turkey, 911?

Terrorists don't share your value systems or concerns. The AQ crowd didn't need Iraq as a reason to kill infidels.

[Malikshah]

27. It's called perspective

look it up in a dictionary.

On another thread, someone mentioned-- 135 dead in Baghdad/Iraq last week alone.

It is the issue of cause and effect. Not an issue of placing blame or in any way supporting the death of innocents.

To argue that those who wish to put things in larger context are ignoring the human tragedy....well-- I won't go there.

[TahitiNut]

54. But the weekly civilian death tolls in Iraq ...

... aren't English-speaking white people. :eyes: So, how can we possibly have as much 4-wall empathy for them? :eyes:

[bloom]

37. But you want to condemn others.

I didn't see anything the matter in the post you pulled out.

[CWebster]

48. BUSHBLAIIRAQ is the god damn context.

And, I will say it again--Do you how many Iraqis have been killed? Not important enough to keep count? Oh, my brother's cousin sister's aunt is 6 miles oitside of London, but other than a fading magnet and mindless babbling about supporting the troops, who cares about some poor black kid, some Mother's son, sold a bill of goods about a chance for the future, walking a thin line between life and death in the Iraqi desert?

Don't ask me to view this through your selective prism of sympathy.

[youspeakmylanguage]

66. I know exactly how many civilians have been killed...

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ - I've been visiting that site since the war began.

You don't know a damn thing about me.

[CWebster]

79. It has stalled at approximately 100, 000 for months

For months, while Iraqis continue to die, that is the number used and no one even notices.

[youspeakmylanguage]

96. The 100,000 number is inaccurate. Pleae provide a link

..., like I have done, to direct evidence of these casualties.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. The Word You Should Be Considering Is Spelled. . .

. . .L-O-G-I-C.

Terrorism is an inherently political act. By its very defintion.

It's illogical for people to not pursue an understanding of such an event by examining the political motivations and reactions to events already extant.

Your outrage appears misplaced.
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

59. How dare you resort to logic in response to self-righteous indignation?

:silly:

[ProfessorGAC]

65. Mea Culpa!

What was i thinking?
The Professor

[bloom]

52. FYI - it was Lancet that came up with the 100,000+ number

basesd on surveys, etc. because Bush&C0. aren't paying any attention to the number of civilians killed and said so.

Maybe you don't know as much as you think you know.

[GeekMonkey]

53. apparently you suffer from black and white disease

if you cant deal with the fact that most DUers see the world in full color, you should probably find a more lockstep type of discussion board to hang out at

[BurtWorm]

55. What is so awful about pointing out that innocents are dying in Iraq?

We've become numb to all that carnage. Maybe the suffering in London is of a piece with the suffering in Baghdad. Maybe it's appropriate to invoke Baghdad when thinking about London.

[rman]

69. so how's that exploitative or disrespectfull?

btw it's not your thread, it's just your opening post.

[patrice]

16. I second that motion.

Such as what? It would be helpful to see examples of what you are talking about.

[TahitiNut]

28. It's a Call to Arms of the Thought Police Militia.

:silly:

[geek tragedy]

7. A -freaking-men.

:toast:

[TwilightZone]

8. Tragedy is often met with reactive behavior.

And that reactive behavior is often extremist and performed with little rational thought.

Time has a tendency to clear the post-tragedy fog and lead to clearer heads.

[TahitiNut]

40. Isn't if strange how those who express differing attitudes ...

... from ourselves always do so "with little rational thought"? :silly:

[TwilightZone]

75. I didn't mean it as a criticism of those who feel differently about it.

I meant it as a generalization.

Our first reaction when faced with tragedy is often to try to rationalize it, but we don't put a lot of thought into those initial reactions, so we essentially try to rationalize using completely irrational thoughts. Simply put, they're knee-jerk reactions.

What's interesting is that this seems to be happening on all sides re: this particular tragedy.

[TahitiNut]

10. It'd be a very boring world ...

... if everyone was like me. After all, how can I even view my opinions and attitudes as choices unless alternatives are evident? How can I give myself a self-righteous ego boost unless there are others whose choices I can claim are 'worse'??

[GeekMonkey]

11. yeah, the saddest thing is people trying to get us to shut up

and ignore the political implications of the attacks

those people would have us do exactly what the bushies want us to do:
shut up and let THEM decide the spin

out of respect for those that died this morning, we should not only NOT let up, we should increase our political actions

[Bouncy Ball]

44. BRAVO.

Exactly. Boy the "shut up" threads popped up FAST, didn't they?

And NONE of the examples cited qualify as "rubbing hands together in glee" as one DUer put it so well above.

[tubbacheez]

12. It's easy to be nice and virtuous when stress is low.

It takes some meaningful stress, some pushing of our personal envelopes, some unexpected loss of confidence, to discover our true strengths and weaknesses.

I don't disparage the fact that some of our friends lose their cool under stress. Everyone here started somewhere. We all are learning and growing, even if it happens slowly.

If we are truly pursuing inclusion, diversity, and tolerance, then we would take these situations as opportunities to learn from each other.

[King Coal]

14. I hope you meant "small minority".

There is, in my opinion, a small minority of us who can't accept reality, because they are too weak to do so. The reality is we don't know who is capable of what. We don't know who is responsible for 9/11. We do know who has lied to us, and why.

[tyedyeto]

17. Where did you see

"that a small majority of us really do support those that would murder civilians in response to our own misguided foreign policy."?

Link, please?

I haven't seen that and have reading many threads about the tragedy in London. What I have seen is discussion about different viewpoints as to why this may have happened, but not support.

[Tsiyu]

18. All's fair in love and war

My heart goes out to victims worldwide who must deal with senseless violence.

But the British have helped invade other countries. As has the US. If this is a counterstrike- and I have doubts, but no one seems to know for sure - why is it a more hallowed event than when an Iraqi village is carpet-bombed? What makes one space more sacred?

Many are asking that question, which only shows that they have compassion for all the earth's humans, and that is what a "good DUer" should possess.

[Junkdrawer]

22. Absolutely - Question the official line and you support the terrorists...

:sarcasm:

[me b zola]

91. Yes, it sounds amazingly like

"You are either with us or aganist us"

[kentuck]

25. Tragedy begets anger and blame...

even amongst compassionate people. Because there is a basic truth involved - it did not have to happen. I do think most everyone here does respect the lives and the families of the victims in todays bombings. But, that does not mean we forego criticism of those that did this horrendous act, as well as those leaders whose decisions led to this act. They do not get a pass.

[fugwb]

60. The way I see it we have been soft too long. We need to think like

the freeps do, but on the opposite side. It may seem heartless, but with all the lies I've had to endure for the past 5 years you can't blame me for being a little skeptical when you think about the timing. I have no doubts Rove and his cabal will try to spin this into a political advantage. Sometimes you have to fight evil with another evil. I just want my country back.

[bigtree]

36. I've seen no support of terror or terrorists here

I have seen folks rightly point out actions by this administration that have provoked more terrorists and contributed to more terrorism. We invaded and occupied two sovereign nations. Everyone in these countries can't be guilty of violence against the U.S., yet we have responded to our own tragedy by indiscriminately bombing innocent citizens and their homes.

What did you expect would happen when our president declared war on everyone who has the temerity to assert their own nationalism in the face of our aggresion? Why do you think folks don't have the capacity to, on one hand, condemn the 9-11 attacks and the British attacks, and still condem the provocations that may have forced these disenfranchised citizens into violent expressions of nationalism and self-determination. If we don't address our own country's arrogance, we will never stop the cycle of hate that has mushroomed in the wake of Bush's illegal war.

[Bridget Burke]

38. I haven't spent enough time on FreeRepublic or CU...

To be familiar with their rhetoric.

Examining the political background & repercussions of the attacks is not out of line. Neither is mentioning the innocents who have died in Iraq & Afghanistan.

[Bouncy Ball]

49. Hear, hear.

And I haven't spent enough time at either place to know that, either.

Good. Point.

[youspeakmylanguage]

99. Are more rules being broken here?

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. Sorry, but I think that is hyperbole and conjecture

What happened in London is tragic. I don't think I read a single post claiming that innocent people deserved this or that civilians should be targeted.

I DO THINK people are pointing out that we have made minced meat of civilians every day in Iraq and that this tragedy SHOULD wake us up to how AWFUL it is that civilians are targeted anywhere.

[noiretextatique]

43. well, i woud say you are no different

the others who make such absurd claims.
the london tragedy is horrific...so is the war in iraq, where cilivians are being murdered daily. what i find reprehensible is those who try to make distinctions between the victims of bushco's misguided policies, as those on the right routinely do.
in reality, the victims in london, madrid, and new york are no different than the victims in iraq and afghanistan.

[patrice]

Amen to that! Thank you.

The "machine" devours all of us, indescriminately.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. That is just BS - LINK PLEASE --No one supports murder !

Anyone who would orchestrate a fake war and thousands and thousands die, phony-up an election, control the media and free speech, could EASILY orchestrate London!

There is no evil that is beyond them.

[atreides1]

50. Tragedy brings out the best and worst everywhere.

"...that a small majority of us really do support those that would murder civilians in response to our own misguided foreign policy."

I don't support it, but I guess I can understand why they do it. Because if it were me, and I was in the same situation, I would do the very same thing.

I am truly sorry that the people of London have suffered this tragedy and I will say a prayer for all those who have died and for those who were wounded.

[rman]

58. Did anyone say anything like "f*ck the Brits" or anything like it?

Or are you just making broad sweeping accusations without any evidence to back it up?

[Bouncy Ball]

68. The second thing.

Although he does have one post to a specific DUer he linked to up above.

:eyes:

Shhhh, fits of indignation are fun! Don't mess up his fun!

[Bouncy Ball]

62. Seriously,

you ACTUALLY believe this???

"...that a small majority of us really do support those that would murder civilians in response to our own misguided foreign policy."

You believe that there are DUers who are jumping up and down with glee that Londoners were killed today?

What the FUCK kind of twisted shit is that? And that little link you gave? There was NOTHING to indicate happiness about this or SUPPORT of those bastards who did it.

What I DID see in the link you gave was someone pointing out that bush's policies regarding terrorism have done more to make things worse than to make things better.

That's just a fact (look it up, I'm sure LynntheDem can provide you with 15,745 links and stories).

If you have a problem with DUers talking about facts, you might need to take a little break.

[Lars39]

70. This whole thread is flame-bait busy work.

I'm gonna stop feeding him.

[youspeakmylanguage]

77. I'm apparently damned if I do, damned if I don't...

If I provide examples, then I'm breaking the rules and flame baiting.

If I don't provide examples, than I'm just making things up.

I never said anything about people "jumping up and down with glee". There are people on these boards, this morning, who felt that the innocent bombing of civilians in London was at the very least a valid response to the actions of our government and military.

I think the insulting, inflammatory and condescending responses I've received in response are entirely unjustified.

[GeekMonkey]

85. It WAS a response, not a valid one, but, then again, neither

was our invasion of Iraq

Just admit you are wrong and move on

[Bouncy Ball]

87. I don't see anyone saying the killing of innocent people is

VALID. You get some proof of that (sans DUers name, sans links) and we'll talk. Even then I bet you can't find more than one out of alllllll the registered members here, if that.

I do see people conjecturing that bush's actions have made things WORSE in the world as far as terrorism goes, and that's a perfectly reasonable item to point out, if you ask me. Again, there's tons of factual support for the assertion that terror has worsened since bush started this. HE even has admitted it.

[geek tragedy]

93. Someone asked "Why are we surprised when they start shooting back?"

That kind of sentiment is so morally and intellectuall idiotic that it boggles the mind.

[Bouncy Ball]

100. Are you surprised by the London bombing?

[geek tragedy]

104. No, because the evil bastards of AQ have been killing infidels for over

a decade now.

AQ is not "shooting back." They are terrorists with an elmiinationist agenda, and their attacks are wholly unprovoked crimes against humanity.

Period.

[Bouncy Ball]

101. Are you surprised by the explosions in London?

Or does it just bother you that people are linking this to bush's fucked up "war on terror?"

And if so, why does that bother you so much? Think he's doing a good job?

[LSK]

67. i see nothing wrong with discussing all aspects of the issue

Sure some ideas you might not like, but I would rather have all ideas presented.

In spite of what Rove says, the only way to deal with terrorism is to try and understand why people commit it in the 1st place.

If there are theories that the reason for these attacks are related to Iraq, I want to hear them.

To put our heads in the sand and just blindly strike out ignorantly is exactly what Bush would want us to do.

[NC Beach Girl]

81. Very well said

I just try to ignore the worst and/or write them off as possible freepers trying to cause trouble.

[Michael_UK]

82. I agree

I understand that some here will want to talk about the politics - did Iraq make things safer and so on, but so many threads have descended into wild-eyed conspiracy theories, LIHOP, MIHOP, who benefits? On a day like today, that kind of talk is truly inappropriate

[Neecy]

84. oh, please...

I haven't seen any support expressed over the murder of civilians.

Why can't people accept that in a large online community, you can't force a desired tone of response? Instead of these dramatic pronouncements proclaiming the "worst" here prove FR/CU "right", why don't you just focus on the topics you're interested in, and save the lectures?

For people who believe in free speech, there certainly is a trend here to curb free discussions out of concern for what freepers might think. Good god. If we learned anything from 9/11, we need to examine what's happening for ourselves and avoid the temptation to look to Big Brother to take care of us, or mindlessly chant USA in response to every incident. Certainly there's sorrow and sympathy for the victims today. It's also certain that the London attack will have ramifications for us here, depending on how Bush chooses to crack down. Discussing that isn't wrong - it's vital.

[Michael_UK]

92. I've seen talk of "payback"

That is truly callous

[Lars39]

98. It's callous to hold your government accountable for their policies

that create shit-storms like retaliation bombings?

[Sparkle]

102. Everyone has an opinion, including you.

If you don't like them, log off and take a break.

[The Magistrate]

105. Locking

Imflammatory