Perhaps I meant to add to it complimentarily.

You can't just tell a person to simply be.
That would seem absurd. They already "are".
ISness is the result, not the cause.
Behind every person who is present is a person
and people have many theories and ideas,
practically all of them wrong.
When the child asks "why", should the parent say "because"?

I believe that the pursuit of something worth pursuing is a valid one, as it's what motivates us and its lessons teach us to abandon the short-term blissful ignorance and fear of egocentric tunnel-vision. You yourself state that "riches beyond measure" come to those who succeed in transcending their ego. To say that desire for personal gain leads to ignorance is false as much as to say that desire for personal loss leads to ignorance is obvious. Personal gain for yourself does not entail personal loss for others, as if resources were limited or one's status and qualities were defined in relation to those of others, but rather personal gain is a matter of balance, resulting in complementariness and  harmony with yourself and your environment.

When you're surrounded by walls it's hard to have awareness past those walls. And I don't mean metaphorical walls, I mean actual ones. In the forest there's tons of emptiness and places for the senses to go.

I agree completely, except the part about living or dying. "Whosoever shall seek to save their soul shall lose it." Once one is it, then that's a different matter.. what to do with immortality? The kicker is that the soul cannot be found through fear of losing it, only through abandon.. not reckless abandon, but in the sense that if one is to truly commit to striving for something with the utmost of their being then they must be willing to risk losing it, they must allow for the possibility of failure or the possibility of unpleasant discovery. If you refuse to discover anything other than that which you seek, then you'll get exactly what you want, until you realize you really don't want it at all. But again, at a certain point, once the great abyss has been traversed, risk only applies to conventional things as fundamentally you have your essence.

Why do you say that, crow? I do not mean to imply that this love should interfere with combating one's enemy, that would be tactically unsound. It's more of a selfish thing really, more about how the human condition works, in the sense that hate is unhealthy and doesn't lead to happiness. Why should I give my enemy the power to make me angry? Why should I allow these bombers to make me hate?

Can one be simply indifferent? I've tried it, and I often am indifferent, relatively speaking though, in the thick of things, in the heat of the moment. At the end of the day, when I'm honest with myself.. I don't know. It's a big question that I myself still ask. Is neutrality feasible or does it harm one's being?

Logic seems to escape you, crow.

Perhaps we should settle this with a good old fashion duel to the death. With swords and everything (no phallus references please).

Would you feel badly if you killed me, crow?

I'm not suggesting people are victims if they fail to gain anything from their actions.

Crow, you asked if they had the 'right' to do what they did.  I asked if they gained anything from their actions in response to that. My point is, do they have the right to gain nothing? Do they have the right to be ignorant? Do they have the right to completely fuck up? What is a 'right'?

If crisis like this really brings out a society's true colors, then I don't see much in society that's worth protecting. It comes as no surprise.

People talk about life being sacred, about cherishing life, while they don't even cherish their own, instead stuck in a narcissistic death grip of fear of losing what they have, fear of losing their non-lived life.

Two guys deliberately murder and maim people they have no connection to. That is the subject.

I'm saying that it's a drop in the bucket, a non-issue.