The bodycount hasnt been completed, but it is clear that more people died than in manchester.

The capitalistic owner of the house tried tp economize by not investing money into fire prevention. In the news they said it was about 5000 pounds or something.

My question ist, why we dont speek of capitalistic terrorism in these cases?
Why dont we shoot the yachts with drones?
Why dont we hunt down all the capitalists without mercy, like we do with islamic terrosits and wipe out entire clans?

edit: of course that are rethorical questions. What i really want to know, where are all the islam-haters of manchesters, when capitalism kills more britains when the suiced bomber?

in case you didnt notice:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40279944

here about the irresponsibly acting of the capitalistic owners:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40271723

and these capitalists must have done that on purpuse. they calculate the cost of a fire, and if the costs multiplied by the odds of it actually happening arent high enough, they will decide to risk human lifes.

I wouldn't confuse it with terrorism but systemic (often criminal) negligence and general 'not giving a ****' is a far more serious and deadly problem. It's also far more tractible in a good way if the political will exists.

lol go home commie

Lol calling this terrorism

More clearly, it cant be called terrorism because it wasn't a deliberate act aimed at provoking terror in the population, more of a by product of a dysfunctional version of capitalism that allows and sometimes encourages people to profit by putting lives at risk.

I only skimmed the article but it appears the builders weren't able to put in the proper insulation because of government red tape. Excellent attempt though OP.

OP, we don't live in a world where resources are infinite. Car manufacturers could build nothing but tanks that cost 300k each and we would all drive around in the safest vehicles possible and automobile injuries and deaths would plummet.

But they don't do that, because people have limited resources and can't spend 300k on a vehicle, so we sacrifice personal safety so that we can get around in a cost-efficient manner. The same principle applies to housing. We could all live in steel shipping containers with no furniture or flammable items, we would all be much safer. However people are willing to sacrifice a chance of dying in a fire for more personal comfort and aesthetics.

In related news, Chipotle has declared jihad on my ***hole. I'm using it to my advantage by spraying this thread with what it deserves.

Not an intentional act to produce fear and change perceptions, so more like 'errorism' than terrorism. It does appear that costs and profits were a factor.

OP go look up warehouse fires in China. Hundreds of people die when there's a fire, because they lock the workers in from the outside so they cant leave!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/wo...-in-china.html

Looks like the building inspector dropped the ball to me, but sure we can blame evil capitalists too.

Nice post!

I'm afraid the place is owned by the local authority, the London Borough of Kensington. Though there probably is an issue with 'self-certification' by private contractors working for local government. And with the application of 'business' priorities to government generally.

Monty Python put it best: Come see the violence inherent in the system.

this blog here documents the lack of fire protection in this building since 2013

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpres...afety-scandal/

What is this? You white knighting for terrorists who actually embrace the terrorist agenda so that everything is terrorism and therefore nothing is terrorism? No one who begins a premise like this has a serious argument.

the problem is that personal safety is neglected so that some ****er can buy himself a yacht.

also there are pirvat firms involved in the scandal and there was more than one safety issue.

the blog i posted 2 posts befor has over 100 entries. pretty embarrasing imo

Maybe because it is horrible negligence, not terrorism?

Nobody uses the pejorative "capitalistic" since the Soviet Union collapsed, btw.

in the 90s the term got out of date, but its pretty much back, unless you are a fox news moron or something.

Lol. Lets see what's stupid ITT. Hmmm the title. OP does not know what terrorism means at best. Is the rest of the thread more intelligible? Less so than say your average soap box.

Thoughts on economic systems and Chernobyl? I didn't think so. This is going to be a particularly high horse to climb down from.

Except for the self loathing suburban leftists squeakers who hate their parents for working hard and making money.

Dad: Son, please clean your room.
Squeaker: **** you, capitalistic pig! And don't touch my Xbox (even though you paid for it)!