Your miss reading what he is saying.... He is speaking of the fact that the G8 is going on 500 miles away and the leaders of the G8 are gathered together and are right with Tony Blair.
Huh. Is he suggesting that Europeans had to experience terrorism firsthand to appreciate it? Or that we shouldn't have serious discussions about African aid or global warming?
yes, in other words - 'we're glad it happened now, and barely 500 miles away from the G8'. Which is utterly stupid, and horribly tactless. All G8 leaders know the deal, and how important it is. They're not dumb, and they don't need bodies on their doorstep to remind them. But I'm sure the business and economic experts they brought with them needed a reminder, right?
Ah I get it your slanted anti G8 views make you think this news guy is happy this happened.... Flame on
I'm sorry, but is one of the three cable news channel that has given us nothing but Aruba, shark attacks, Michael Jackson, and missing kids in Idaho actually lecturing the public about what the leaders of the free world ought to be discussing at the G8 meeting? I'll remember that next time someone links to Bill O'Reilly's next expose on Ward Churchill.
As opposed to 24/7 on Bush's 30-year old military records throughout the last campaign season from one network that shall remain nameless?
Would someone tell that guy on Fox about how the IRA were bombing London on and off for the better part of three decades?
The most utterly silly statement in there is that Europe somehow needs to learn to know what terrrorism is. The most downright stupid comment in there is that it would be wrong to spend time on fighting global warming and poverty in Africa as long as the war on terror is. All three issues deserve equal attention, because they are equally a threath to our way of life.
Are you taking the words of one person, twisting them out of context, and attributing them to a particular news organization as a whole? Naughty. Not nice.
First off, it's not twisted out of context. I happened to catch this little exchange live. Second, the man is a Fox news anchor. He does speak for an entire news organization.
Were you the one that denied Dan Rather spoke for CBS just a few months ago? Brian KILMEADE is hardly an anchor but a bit part of Fox & Friends in the morning! Pay attention will you? Uma Pemmaraju is more of an anchor than Kilmeade!
Errrr, no. He was giving an opinion. And I think some of you are missing the context. What this newsperson was trying to say is that in his opinion it was a positive thing that the leaders of the G8 were all together in Britain when the attacks happened, not that it was a good that the attacks happened. Are you guys for real? You have to be really biased to the point of myopia to take the sentence which was highlited to mean literaly that Kilmeade, let alone Fox News as an organization, is pleased with the attacks on London.
Just to repeat what this total shell of a creature considered to be the salient point in the discussion he was conducting about the horrible events today. Generally, today has been heartening in the one small sense that it has proven that human beings can normally rise above their own petty preoccupations in times of great duress. But there have also been sad, tiring and depressing vignettes of some people's utter inability to raise themselves, their intellect, their moral grounding and their basic humanity above the pathetic inconsequentiality of their partisan preoccupations. Here and in the media. I'm thinking of Karl's first contribution to the main thread, I'm thinking of ITN's witless chittering, I'm thinking of god_borat's swiftly removed "England gets owned by Al-Qaeda" thread - and I'm thinking of this Fox "News" wankstain. 37 deaths and 700 injuries and it's to "our advantage" that this happened. "Our". Fucking "our". Who's he speaking about? For whom is this advantageous? Don't get me wrong - I know exactly what he means, I just can't believe someone who at some point must have been human could become so empty a being. I can't believe someone could be so callous in their perception that they can ascribe the events themselves some sort of merely contextual relevance and focus on the fact that this will probably give added pep to the neocon permawank that is the War on Terror. He's one of the tragic ideologues who believe the war on terror and the propagation of the neocon vision of American global power is the single most important reason for us all to be alive. He's one of the sad, tiny minority that view with genuine derision the fact that there is any form of initiative taking place that places something other than those narrow, venal pursuits centre stage. Global climate controls? Debt, famine, disease and misery? Pah! Stay the course ... I don't understand how people can allow their petty ideologies to hollow them out to this extent. How completely divorced from your fellow humans must you be to view this tragedy in these terms??
I don't know, I just listened to the clip and the tone of the guy seemed quite disconnected from the level of human tragedy that this terrorism has caused, and the thing that mattered being that it was to "our advantage." At the very least it was a tactless remark. He made two points, both of which I disagree with. Firstly, as for the G8 leaders being 500 miles away, so what? Exactly which of these leaders isn't aware of the horrible threat of terrorism? It's not as though Europe, and Britian in particular, hasn't suffered from terrorism for the last few decades. He also 'mocked' the G8 agenda for making Global Warming and Africa priorities. Again, I disagree. Is the "War on terrorism" the only subject that is worthy of the world's leaders' attention? I mean. it's not as though there's been a lack of focus on terrorism in the last four years.
That is precisely and exactly it. The events in London were just raw materials for propaganda and ideological reinforcement. I saw the clip too - it was delivered with a palpable sense of "huh! that should wake a few of these weenies up - global warming indeed! Stay focused, people!"
I think people are taking this the wrong way. While what happened was a bad thing and everyone hopes it doesn't happen to them, there are some "positives" that will come out of it. 1. It takes the focus of the world and G8 away from helping Africa and the environment, to terrorism. That is the number one problem that the world currently faces. I'm not saying the other issues aren't important, but with all of the focus being put on them recently (and anti-G8, etc) people have lost sight of the war against terror that we are still fighting. The fact that it happened so "close" to the G8 meeting will hopefully make it more significant. 2. It bring the issue into the everyday life of people from the UK. While we can express anger and shock at 9/11 and the Madrid bombings, it is quickly forgotten as we get back to everyday life. I have heard lots of complaints about the US and how "heavy handed" they have been in regard to defence. Hopefully this will give a lot of people some perspective. Yes, we have experienced the IRA. But that is in the past and we have become complacent. 3.. Everyone expected an attack on the UK and London in particular. Although this was bad, it was nothing compared to what could have happened. Now it is finally over and we can seriously improve our security. This should hopefully minimise the chances of a big attack in the future. In response to the post by Matt above, it might seem harsh to think in a desensitised manner like that, but it is the best way to rationally deal with things and look forward.
Really? With all due respect to and grief for the dead and wounded in London, the mayhem toll is pretty insignificant compared to a TYPICAL day in Africa. And it was a once every 2 years, apparently, stunt that AQ can pull off. It's the #1 problem if you have no sense of perspective, or think colored people don't matter, or are an irrational pvssy.
Dave's an ass, but the plight of Africa should not be trivialized and has nothing to do with today's events.
I don't care doodly-squat about G8 or even know too much about it. But I'm thinking anybody who thinks the experts in Scotland who flew over there prepared with agendas about world economics, Africa, and global poverty - ain't exactly the experts that should be making decisions about the future of the war on terror.