Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London 3468
M3rk1n_Muffl3y writes "There were six explosions around London this morning. Information is still emerging, but looks like there were bombs detonated on a bus near Russel Square and several others on the Underground around the City and King's Cross. It's been difficult to reach people on their mobiles."
Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Informative)
A previously unknown group calling itself "Secret Organisation al Qaeda in Europe" said it carried out the attacks.
My thoughts go out to everyone in London!
Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs (Score:5, Insightful)
1) "Secret Organisation al Qaeda in Europe"? That's a hastily made-up name if I ever saw one. It's against 'normal' Al Qaeda's modus operandi to go claiming responsibility so quickly, so why the new 'secret' version would be so forthcoming baffles me.
More seriously,
2) The actual statement talks about how Britain is trembling in fear 'to the North, South, East and West'. Well, having heard from people who have a bus in mangled bits RIGHT OUTSIDE THEIR FECKING WINDOW, they've failed in that one. Everyone is just pissed off they've got several miles to walk home, because there's no public transport.
We did terrorism for years, thanks to the IRA (funded by certain Americans, but we don't care as we can tell the difference between individuals and states, unlike Al "smash the Infidel by blowing up a bunch of random people" Qaeda). We got bored and went back to work before these little wankers even started.
Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs (Score:5, Insightful)
jesus we have people in texas and alabama yelling about how badly we have to attack countries so they can finally "feel safe".
Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs (Score:5, Insightful)
And unlike Tony "let's invade Afghanistan because someone we think hurt us might be hiding there" Blair and George "let's destroy Iraq because that Saddam guy is an asshole" Bush ?
Hold on a minute. Although the invasion of Iraq can certainly be questioned, attacking Afghanistan was a reasonable thing to do. We didn't think someone was hiding there, we absolutely knew they were, and the government of Afghanistan wasn't even trying to deny it. They were knowingly harboring and protecting a large and dangerous terrorist organization, and pretty much the whole world was in agreement that that was not right.
My only beef with the Afghanistan situation is that we're dropping the ball now. The US acquired a reputation during the Cold War for going into small countries, screwing them up badly, and then leaving. That sort of ham-handed meddling is exactly what makes a big chunk of the world mad at us. If we're going to fix that reputation we need to do right by Afghanistan. We need to leave it a much better place than we found it, and we're not doing that.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still wondering whether it's some IRA faction, personally. These don't seem to have been really big bombs - we're seeing lots of wounded, not many dead. Jihadists tend to go for the big bodycount, while the Irish terrorists always preferred to cause disruption wherever possible. Although comparatively few are known dead - fewer than, say, Omagh, and so far nowhere near the bombings in Madrid or Bali - it has ruined all business in London today, and possibly tomorrow.
One final puzzle: why didn't they do this yesterday? Bombing the Tube yesterday morning would surely have scuppered the Olympic bid...
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Informative)
This is very much not the IRA.
It is completely against their MO.
The IRA never seek to kill civilians, just to cause terror and as such have almost without exception issues coded warnings prior to the attacks.
What are you talking about?
Just because the IRA apologizes for one attack against civilians after 30 years doesn't mean it didn't happen!
1972 - Bloody Friday (civilians targeted)
1974 - Guildford pub bombing (civilians targeted)
1974 - Birmingham pub bombing (civilians targeted)
1982 - Hyde Park (military targeted)
1983 - Harrods department store (civilians targeted)
1984 - Brighton hotel (government officials targeted)
1987 - Enniskillen (civilians targeted)
1989 - Deal Marine Band (military targeted)
1992 - Omagh (civilian contractors working for military)
1993 - Warrington (children targeted)
1993 - Bishopsgate (civilians targeted)
1993 - Belfast Fish & Chip store (civilians targeted)
1996 - Canary Wharf (civilians targeted)
1996 - Manchester office building (civilians targeted)
It is only on rare occasion that IRA attacks in England have been targeted at the military. They almost always go for civilian targets.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Funny)
What fascinatingly reckless and uninformed speculation. Why not just say "I am completely ignorant of any facts in this matter." It is easier to type and gets your point across a lot quicker.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that is probably why they attacked. It is much harder to recruit impressionable teens into your organization when there is no polarizing force (read: military occupation) in place. Terrorist groups rely on continued escalation by US/UK as a selling point for joining their organization. The terrorists thrive on this scenario:
1) Attack civilians
2) Wait for retaliation
3) Use collateral damage as a rallying point to increase membership
4) GOTO 1
I truly believe that if we left Iraq tomorrow, the insurgency would collapse in a short time because they'd have no real reason to exist. The true terrorists would have no freedom fighter status in which to cloak themselves, and the nationalist insurgents would likely turn against the terrorists.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to believe that too.
But look at History. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US funnelled money to groups like Al Qaeda, and elements of Pakistan's ISI, to aid them in fighting the Soviets. When the Soviets pulled out, there was a 10-year civil war that killed tens of thousands of civilians. Kabul was reduced to rubble. Guess who owned the country after that?
If the US pulled out of Iraq now, Iraq would become little more than a client state of Iran. Which would make countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria nervous as hell. Invading Iraq was a mistake of such huge proportion, given it's oil reserves, and the reserves of most of the nations neighboring Iraq, the end result will be effective control of a dangerously large proportion of world reserves by a single entity, should we pull out now. In other words, a major fucking disaster.
Personally, I think that the only workable option, right now, is partition. Give the Kurds a huge chunk of the north, and it's oil. Give the Shiites a chunk, and the Sunnis a chunk, including the fields borderinng with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but above all, leave the Shiites a little short on the deal, because they're going to rely on Iranian assistance anyway. The other thing the US should do, is tap into the moderate Shiites - so far largely ignored in favor of the radical shiite politicians we put into power (the Chalabi gang). That would probably give us a better outcome.
Frankly, I think that the best outcome for the war-profiteers will be to continue occupation for a couple more years, and then pull out, leaving the region in a state of constant warfare for the next 100 years until the last drop of oil is sucked out of the ground. The war-profiteers will make the most money that way, which, of course, was the whole point of this excercise in the first place.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that you'd have to go back to the days of Babylon in order to find out "who started it". I'd say its the fault of all parties involved for letting this situation go on for as long as it has. The West needs to quit using vassal states to do its bidding and the Middle East needs to get away from blowing up innocent people in order to achieve their political goals.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
"Anarchist groups haven't been involved in terrorism since the nineteenth Century and it's hard to believe they'd suddenly start now."
I'm pretty sure Anarchists were still quite active in the early 20th century. In the early twentieth century "anarchist" was the blanket condemnation applied to enemies of the state as was "communist" in the 50's and "terrorist" is today. There is something about political propaganda that mandates there be some in vogue term ending in "ist" which politicians can use to brand and denigrate all their enemies without having to think to much.
Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by someone usually refered to as an "anarchist", and in an important lesson we should learn from today, the overreaction by nation states to that act of terrorism did vastly more damage to those nation states than the act of terrorism itself. It triggered World War I, millions of casualties, the Russian Revolution, and the end of the Habsberg empire of which Ferdinand was an heir.
Kind of shows how one relatively easy to execute act can lead to widespread devestation when politicians go nuts in response.
9/11 as tragic as it was, lead to an overreaction by the U.S. that resulted in the Iraq war which has killed far more people than 9/11 did and will cost the U.S. far more than 9/11 did before its done.
The use of bombs against civilians as happened in Madrid and London is tragic. But, I'm afraid you really can't to holier than though about it when you drop bombs on civilians as the U.S., Britain and Israel have done as a matter of routine over the years. There isn't really any difference between the two acts other than the attempt by the U.S, Britain and Israel to rationalize it, the fact is the civilians are just as dead and maimed whether you use a suicide bomber or an F-16 to deliver the payload.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Informative)
Responsibility (Score:5, Informative)
(translation [spiegel.de])
That doesn't make any sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not WW2. Impoverishing them until they have nothing left to lose will not solve the problem. It didn't work in Israel, and it won't work for the west.
Get some perspective. You're still thousands of times more likely to die from normal homocide than you are from terrorism. You're thousands of times more likely to take your own life. Sure, we should and can do things to help prevent terrorism... stop supplying Israel with military aid, for example, and replace the silly symbolic airport screenings with something that has a chance of catching people. But ultimately there isn't a whole lot one can do to stop someone who is willing to die, once they've been driven to that point. Spend more time and money putting the west in a positive light around the world, and accept that sometimes bad things will happen.
I feel terrible for the people in London. I fear that the tragedy of this event will be followed by the tragedy of throwing away what is good about their society.
Re:Sounds good to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny, so are they. Welcome to the moral low ground.
Re:What will the EU do? (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but how many of their relatives can one kill before they get involved?
Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It! (Score:5, Informative)
Are you familiar with what we did in Iran? [wikipedia.org]
Our awful, and bloodthirsty, actions in Iran destabilized a popular, realtively moderate (if nationalist) democracy [wikipedia.org] and installed a pro-western puppet, [wikipedia.org] who clung to power with a secret police [wikipedia.org] described by Amnesty International as the "world's worst" for their unheard-of level of barbarity and disrespect for human rights.
Result: in 1979, our CIA-backed puppet was overthrown, and a Radical, Fascist Islamic Theocracy gained power.
This is what they call a "backlash."
So let's read what you said again:
The US (and/or the West) are not responsible exclusively, or even mostly, for the situation in the mideast.
Let's all reflect on this a moment.
OK, ready to continue?
You may be right that the Middle East has its own problems, and your implied ruthless reasoning about the world's necesity for oil will no doubt resonate, but what you are dreadfully wrong about is that the American/Brittish petroleum-industry campaign of dirty tricks and military intervention works. It does not work.
Iraq will be worse than Iran; I imagine even you are realizing it now.
If you are a Ruthless American (and I imagine this country was built partly on their shoulders), you can say the problem isn't that we tried to exert influence, only that we failed. But, in light of recent history, why don't we leave a little room for alternative interpretations.
You actually believe that "people in Iraq", i.e., normal citizens of Iraq, have anything whatsoever to do with this?
You are trying to minimize the undeniable fact that many Iraqis, not just Iranians and Syrians and Saudis, are participating in guerrilla war against the U.S. military. Many of them out of nationalism, or because of the Sunni-Shiite shuffle, or many just because a relative became American collateral damage.
Maybe even just because their wife and children were dragged outside at 2am and frisked and interrogated by 19 year olds from Kentucky on a tip provided by somebody getting paid to provide tips.
No matter how you justify invading them, being untruthful with yourself and others about the conduct and consequences of the war is dangerous, to your country, to its armed forces (which bear the brunt of the policies we advocate), and to yourself, ultimately, if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time for the next bit of blowback against westerners.
Living in a safer world starts every morning with you waking up and refusing to accept a little more rhetoric, and dealing a little bit more seriously with the truth instead. You urgently need the truth. And you deserve it.
So you're saying that full scale ethnic and religious genocide is the only way to modernize and democratize the mideast, to enable a free flow of information and a free exchange of ideas, and to empower the peoples of said nations to control their own personal and collective destinies in an environment that nurtures ideals of freedom?
If we started with non-oil producers in greater need, people actually would believe that was what we were doing.
You even mix the rhetoric of spreading democracy and going after oil in the same post.
Don't you see it? Or must we still talk about it abstractly, only as "what Iraqis believe..."
Re:What will the EU do? (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly don't believe it's my personal fault that there are countries that haven't kept pace with the prosperity of the Western world. And while I also don't think that I am in any way immediately responsible for the birth of said prosperity, what I am responsible for is doing what I can to allow it to continue. If I were in charge, I would be more than willing to help other countries prosper, as well, but there are a few things that you'll need to keep in mind about the nature of this help:
1) It will be on my terms. If I cannot afford to continue aid, or if such aid impairs with my own well-being, then I shall not be obligated to provide you with it.
2) It will require your help. I cannot hold your hand forever; such aid is given with the expectation that it will be used towards an ultimate goal of self-sufficiency.
3) You shall not squander what I give, nor complain when what I give is not what you expect. You do not need anyone's approval to work problems out on your own. If you don't like what I have given you, then you can find your own solutions. My solutions are inevitably influenced by my world-view. Naturally, this is not necessarily your world-view. If you want solutions other than the ones that I can most readily provide, then you will find them yourself.
This is very simple, common sense. I'm not as well-versed on foreign affairs as all of the political experts here, but I imagine it follows roughly along the guidelines listed above. The impression I am getting from the posts above mine is that there are some who believe that the people of the Western world are at fault for the shortcomings of the less-prosperous. I have done nothing to actively squander the growth and development of any nation, and I'm certain that this holds for the vast majority of people in the world.
The people of these nations living on 15 cents a day are no more or less human than the rest of us. They are no more or less capable of forming solutions to their problems, as others have done throughout history. In fact, the Southwest Asian/Northern African region has historically been a hub for intellectual pursuit. There is no reason to believe that they are incapable of surviving without the support of the Western world, and by insisting that they are, you do them a disservice greater than that caused by any bomb, tariff, or ideology.
travel updates for Southern england (Score:5, Informative)
Mobiles (Score:5, Interesting)
This is apparently part of the government's planned response to this sort of situation (the bombs in Madrid were triggered by mobile phone).
Re:Mobiles (Score:5, Informative)
FYI... (Score:5, Informative)
Londoners have been warned to stay at home. Commuters have been warned to avoid London.
Mobile phone net (Score:4, Informative)
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be a little bit considerate. Not all
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
More people, statistically, will die today on US highways than have been reported so far in London.
An order of magnitude more will die of smoking related diseases in the US.
Even more will die of starvation globally. Or natural causes.
People make jokes about things that stress them out. Its how people cope, and people shouldn't be made to feel bad about it. Its human nature. Its the political correctness bullshit that its somehow wrong that keeps people from dealing with this kind of emotional stress. Joking is a BIG part of getting past things like that.
Yes, it may be insensitive, but you can't think of a thing to say that isn't going to offend someone somewhere.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, I'm making jokes about it.
Making jokes about something does not mean you don't take it seriously. Neither does it mean you disrespect anybody. It just means that you, for a moment, want to make someone laugh.
Yes, I made jokes about 9/11. I made jokes about when 60 people died in a fire in the house next to mine, and I made jokes about when a colleague I really liked killed himself in car crash (yes, it was most definitely his own fault).
If you think that means these people are "just a joke" to me, you... I lack the words, even - it's that stupid.
To our British friends (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope someday my children will understand terrorism as a savage relic of the past but I do not hold much hope for that.
Be strong people of England.
Re:To our British friends (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be assured the people of the Briton will never surrender to Terrorism. We faced down the IRA for 30 years despite their attacks being many times more often and many time more serious in casualties and damages each year.
Get the latest from BBC (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/londo
(/. don't allow me to post anonymously...)
Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
As it breaks... (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently the Army are now on the streets of london, trying to help EMTs get to the injured, there's a train full of people still stuck underground. Public transport hs been shutdown in London and people are being advised to stay where they are and not go into the city.
Reports are that there were 6 bombs, 3 on buses and 3 on subway trains.
Tony Blair is on his way back to London from the G8 summit in Edinburgh
Allegedly, al Qa'eda are claiming responsibility, but i haven't been able to find a definite source on this.
BBC.co.uk has been swamped, but news.bbc.co.uk is still available (last i checked)
This pisses me off royally... London was set to celebrate getting the Olympics today, huge open air celebrations, but that's all been cancelled. With all the humanitarian work that's been happening in the last weeks, you'd think that malcontents would be a little less belligerent. Progress is being made.
Now the British (who have masses of experience dealing with terrorists) will be pissed off, and the Americans have an excuse to throw their weight around even more...
Also, from talking to people in a few places, everyone seems to be thinking "Are we next?". Yes the British went into Iraq and Afghanistan, but they're been fairly well controlled for the most part. This is extremism at its worst. I don't want to kill the people who did this, i want to slap them in the face and tell them to cop themselves on... this is exactly the opposite of progress.
Some details (Score:5, Informative)
I was in the midst of this when it happened. The Metropolitan line was halted, then the Jubilee. The train driver announced a "power surge on the combine", which is probably a prearranged message to prevent panic in an emergency. Trains were then brought into the nearest station and the passengers requested to evacuate. The tube staff were very calm and efficient, and I didn't see any panic. There was defnitely a sense that something unusual had happened, and people were mostly silent as we filed out to the sound of recorded evacuation messages.
Anyone trying to contact friends and relatives, please don't panic if you cannot get through. the cellphone networks are being taking in and out of public service so that the emergency services can use them reliably. Same may be true for regular phone lines.
Re:Some details (Score:5, Informative)
I was on the central line eastbound going from oxford circus at about 09:20, and there was an announcement that due to a suspect package Bank and one other station was closed. On the next stop the driver then announced that the whole underground system was closed to a power failure and asked everybody to leave the station immediately.
Afterwards, found that my mobile did not work at all. I walked back to victoria station to try and catch a train home and found it closed off. One of the policemen there said that the mobile network had been closed in london (hence a lot of people using phone boxes), and that all public services were cancelled.
I managed to then walk down to clapham junction and catch a train home from there.
Watch the Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Watch the Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Clever (Score:5, Insightful)
People in the UK are used to it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to have gone out of favour after 11th Sept 01. Funny how it's not funny when it starts happening to you, isn't it?
Re:People in the UK are used to it. (Score:5, Funny)
FFS man, have you been asleep??
The IRA are noble freedom fighters who are combating oppression by striking at the heart of their oppressors, and that's why the USA has generously aided their noble cause.
Al-Qaeda are evil terrorists who are spreading misery by targeting civilians and landmarks, and that's why the USA has nobly opposed their evil agenda.
Could the difference BE more obvious? They don't even wear the same headgear; the IRA typically wear balaclavas because they are a perfectly sensible measure to avoid vicious British retaliation, and Al-Qaeda typically wear scarfy things because they are sinister and menacing symbols of terror.
They aren't funded the same way either. The IRA are funded partly by contributions and partly by the drug trade, which they are forced to get involved with brutal oppression leaves them no choice. Al-Qaede are funded partly by contributions and partly by the drug trade, which they are involved with because it suits their naturally evil state of mind.
If the difference still isn't clear, hang out with some Americans until it is.
A Note of Solidarity (Score:5, Interesting)
the time. The company had installed a really large set of screens at
the end of the floor to keep traders up to current events. Various
financial news channels would be on at any given point in time, and on
slow days, the occasional sporting event.
Jeff, a new hire along with me, stopped by my desk. He said, you have
to see this, a plane just hit the World Trade Center. So we went back
to the floor and stared at dumb amazement at the big screen, and
watched the whole sorry show. I remember talking at that time with
other people. All of is new it was an act of war, but some of us
realized that our country would never be the same again. We looked at
other as the buildings collapsed, and said, "well, we are a police
state now." Despite all the platitudes of life moving on as normal, we
all knew in some way that our country as we knew it was gone.
There were some rumours of planes also targetted buildings in
Philadelphia, where my mother worked. There was of course no way to
get in touch with anyone. All the phones were jammed and the main web
sites were blocked because they were being pounded on so much. I
managed to do as much work as I could, as if I could blot it out. They
let us go early that day. Many of the traders had collegues in New
York.
When I came home that day my wife had found the largest American flag
we had and hung it up. She had actually been rather opposed to hanging
up American flags. One of those liberals that thought patriotism was
tacky, she wrote in her then journal. "Today I know what it means to
be American." And then, we turned the TV off and the radio off. I
couldn't watch it any more. I didn't want to think about it. But
later on that evening I had occasion to go the store and I turned on
NPR for a quick update.
There was the BBC, and with typical British class and elegance they
dispatched with all the usual platitudes and did the simple thing.
They conjured up an orchestra which played the Star Spangled Banner.
And that time was the only time I actually cried at all over 9/11. And
I will never forget that moment of solidarity with the British people,
will never forget that in more than my lifetime, from World War II, the
Cold War, and now in Iraq, the cause of freedom, freedom of the seas,
freedom from tyranny, freedom of the press, and freedom of trade, has
been a joint American and British project. For generations now, the
United States has never had a better friend or more noble ally than the
United Kingdom.
I hope that casualties are few in London. I hope that the number of
people that perished are small. I hope that the wounded will recover.
I hope that your nation does not go as crazy as ours did. The world
needs the voice of British reason to counter American romance. Today
I'm going to go buy a Union Jack and hang it up on my house. Your
former colonies are with you. We are all British today.
Excellent Wikipedia page on the Bombs (Score:5, Informative)
Someone from the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't careless. The IRA did this loads of times, lots of people have died in the same situations spread out over a couple of weeks. It used to be a fact of life that this happens. 1 event isn't a huge issue.
Save the pity and shock for else where. It's not needed and hopefully we won't whore this like September 11th was.
I know this'll get marked troll but I think it's an opinion we NEED to see put out. Some of us couldn't careless, it won't stop our lives any more then seeing a giant pink elephant would.
It happened, it's over and done with, next please.
Re:Someone from the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, we are used to this from the IRA days. My condolences to anyone who has lost someone. These lunatics need to be stopped. Still against ID cards though, no matter how the government will try and spin this in its favour.
Phillip.
Re:Someone from the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't happen, but it would be the best course of action.
Re:Someone from the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have plenty, too much in fact. We're just too busy crying over tens of people who've died in a one-off event and can't be brought back to care for the thousands who die daily and can be saved in the future.
I was on my way to work when it happened (Score:5, Interesting)
The stop that the signs directed me to was on a road that the police were cordoning off as I arrived. I saw several police cars and fire engines, and a group of dazed-looking people being escorted away from some buses, clutching bits of paper. (I'm assuming that the paper was for taking statements)
Given that it was a reasonably nice day at the time, I decided to walk the rest of the way. On the journey (which took about an hour or so) I heard lots of sirens and helicopters, and saw quite a few police cars and fire engines (including one with "COMMAND UNIT" painted on the side). I also saw an unmarked car driven by someone not in uniform, tearing along with siren blaring and a stick-on light flashing. That gave me pause; the plain-clothes guys don't get called out for "power surges", even if they've caused a transformer or two to blow.
Now, everything's pretty quiet. The 'phone networks are getting back to normal, although for a while it was hard to get through - it took me a couple of dozen tries to get through to my girlfriend and parents (who knew more about what was going on than I did, walking through central London), but nothing that you wouldn't expect from everyone calling everyone else (eg as they do on NYE).
Apart from that, and the complete shut down of transport in central London (including the whole of hte Tube network), everything is more or less as it is any other day. The streets are a little quieter, and some shops are closed, but apart from that you could be forgiven for not realising that anything had happened. That won't be the case in the areas directly affected, but here in the West End, it's almost like any other day.
The news is a different story, of course, and there are rumours and counter rumours flying around like crazy. Talk of people being shot by police, suicide bombers in Canary Wharf (lots of financial companies there), more bombs being found, uncomfirmed reports of it being a terrorist attack; it's hard to tell what's true and what isn't.
(As I type this, I can hear more sirens out in the streets below)
My heart goes out to those that were caught up in it, and the people who have lost loved ones or who simply can't contact them to find out.
The latest and a Londoner's view (Score:5, Insightful)
3 were on underground trains and 1 on a bus.
As a Londoner I've been expecting this, its inevitable, you can never have a free society and prevent every terrorist. The thing we must do is, like we did in the 70s under the threat from the IRA, is continue our lives and not let the terrorists dictate our actions and lives.
We must not let our government use this as an excuse to impose more authoritarian laws and continue to spread the message of freedom and liberty, in its social, personal, political and economic guises.
We must not give in to the terrorists and become like them. They want us to attack innocent people who just happen to be arabic or muslim, it will help swell their ranks.
Re:The latest and a Londoner's view (Score:5, Insightful)
A free society is something you have to fight for. Always. Just because we've had an easy ride the past few years doesn't mean the battle is over. Just as this attack isn't the start of anything. It's one more lunatic group who's cult philosophy involves murdering innocent people.
I agree that I don't want these nuts to change my way of life, and I don't want the government to introduce any knee-jerk authoritarian legislation. Or ID cards. I also don't want to hear any talk of 'terrorists'. I want those responsible identified. And I want them punished.
Phillip.
Police request preservation of digital comms (Score:5, Interesting)
------------
A coordinated terrorist act requires communication between the parties involved. It is therefore likely that the perpretrators behind the multiple explosions in central London today have used telecommunications systems in the planning and execution of their act. The investigation into this crime will take many months and it is likely that the siginificance of specific communications data and current stored content will not become immediately apparent and there is a real risk that important evidence could be lost.
On behalf of all of the agencies involved in the investigation of this incident, I am requesting that, to the extent of what is reasonably practicable that you preserve all existing communications data and content of stored communications (email, SMS, voicemail) held by you in order that it is available to the investigation of this crime.
Data is exempt from the 1st Data Protection Principle if it is processed for the purpose of prevention and detection of crime or the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. (Section 29 (1) Data Protection Act 1998.)
This request relates only to the preservation of data and content which is currently stored. Any access requests to such data will be made through the appropriate legal process.
I will keep this matter under constant review and will notify you immediately of any change of circumstances. I will in any case update you on a monthly basis as to the on-going requirement for the preserved data.
Below I have included a list of the of data types that this request addresses. This list is not exclusive and you are asked to preserve any data that can be used to identify communications that have taken place and links to the parties.
* Content of email servers
* Email server logs
* Radius or other IP address to user resolution logs
* Pager, SMS and MMS Messages currently on the network's platform
* Content of voicemail platforms
* Call data records (includes mobile, fixed line, international gateways & VoIP)
* Subscriber records
Any questions in relation to this request should be addressed in the first instance by email to xxxx@xxxx.org. The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit is an operational unit of the National Crime Squad of England and Wales.
Signed
Jim Gamble
Deputy Director General
National Crime Squad
Chair ACPO Data Communications Group
Re:7 bombs (Score:5, Informative)
That could make things interesting.
Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but they are bored of that now anyway. It's the war on civil liberties they will try this time around.
"QUICK! Arrest some people and hold them without charge! Then introduce national ID cards."
If those measures don't eliminate the existance of bombs and make everyone happy then I don't know what will.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that or complete all out war where we level their countries to the ground and exterminate their people (note to those about to mod as troll, this is not something I support).
The problem is western governments meddle in middle eastern affairs because they need the region to be "compliant". They don't want to get too involved, but at the same time they've spent several decades meddling (usually with disasterous side effects) and thus building up the hatred.
Of course the amount of hatred that has built up will probably take just as many decades to go way.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
Islam has always been a melded church and state, even more so than the Catholics ever did. For many years (up to the present) there has been essentially no difference between clerics and rulers, usually they were the same people, still are. This causes pervasive problems. Not the least of which is that those who hold the reigns of government are religiously obligated to eradicate the infidels (both the Koran and bible are very clear about converting or killing nonbelievers). Just as bad (and we see some of this in the States) is that the government feels the need to ban or repress science, as both religion and science are claiming to have the truth, and they can't both be right. This makes Theocracies third world countries, and it makes the citizens jealous of those who are not so backwards.
Theocracy and democracy cannot easily coexist, just as Communism and Capitalism have trouble. A Theocracy next to a democracy finds that many of its citizens would flow over the border to join the heathens, and those left behind would hate the outsiders for reasons related to religious dogma and jealousy. You just can't build your dreams on forcing people to strictly adhere to a set of rules if there is a beautiful country nearby without those rules. This will cause persistent conflict that cannot be eliminated without eliminating either Democracy or Theocracy, I know which one I'll pick. One way or another, Theocracy has got to go, there will be no peace until it does.
That being said, the US hasn't been terribly careful in picking its battles (literally and figuratively), but we didn't cause the problem. The problem will continue until there is a concrete change in the world dynamic, leaving them alone won't solve anything. If they were powerful enough to destroy us, they would have done so long ago. We have been powerful enough to destroy them for many years, and yet we have not done so. Fortunately, the balance of power is not likely to ever change.
I'm going to disagree (Score:5, Informative)
Take the Taliban for example. In the 1980's, Henry Kissinger advised Ronald Reagan that through Afghanistan, the USA could hand the USSR "Its Viet Nam".
Thus, the "Afghan Freedom Fighters" were born.
So, at our encouragement (and provision), they bled, and died, and won their freedom. Much like China backed the Viet Cong, we backed the Afghans.
And later presidents (and congress) changed their mind. We abandoned them.
The Taliban then started pounding the drum "They played us for suckers. Are you widows and orphans (and neighbors of widows and orphans) listening?"
The cause of all this trouble was not religious bigotry - it was meddling.
Well, it was meddling, and the lack of foresight to understand that presidents change, and there are no guarantees that the new president will maintain the policies of the old president. Any country or people that cut a deal with the USA needs to understand that. Frankly, our own State Department needs to warn the principals of this, at the beginning of any scheme.
To write off their anger as incoherent religious dogma is to delude yourself. We meddled. Then we walked away, without much, if any, thanks. Those actions had consequences.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Those who forget history... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, 'cause WWII was the last war the US was involved in...
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that you're trying to use shame/guilt to silence a free discussion.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reminded of Lisa Simpson:
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Informative)
That aside, I'm sorry, but you can't just say "well, he was a bad guy, we had to do it regardless of the reason" after all of the lying and deception that this administration is guilty with. THAT is what everyone is really pissed off at. Everyone who is looking at this clusterfuck with their eyes open knows damn well that Bush didn't give a shit about the people of Iraq, but used that as his second or third reason that this "had to be done." THAT is what is evil.
PS: Kuwait was slant-drilling into Iraqi oilfields. Iraq told the US, warned that they were going to invade. We said "meh, whatever." On July 16, a meeting of OPEC ("Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries") in Geneva ended with Iraq once more threatening military force against Kuwait for exceeding production quotas and for violating the agreement on drilling rights in the Rumaila oil field, a banana shaped area spanning both sides of the common border. Iraq charged Kuwait with cheating: taking more than its fair share of the oil in the field by using slant drilling techniques. Iraq further complained that Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates had refused to cancel Iraq's debts from its war with Iran.
The next day, July 17, Saddam threatened to use force against any Arab oil exporters who refused to abide by their production quotas. The day after this threat, July 18, Saddam massed 30,000 Iraqi troops on his border with Kuwait. The U.S. Senate voted sanctions against Iraq.
On July 25, Egypt reported that Saddam was willing to settle his differences with Kuwait peacefully. The same day, Saddam was told by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, in a meeting in Baghdad that the United States had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydataba se/gulf_war.htm [nmhschool.org] . d _States_(1988-present) [wikipedia.org]
Some more of that in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Unite
The Ghandi responce (Score:5, Insightful)
Give in?
That didn't work well with bullies in grade school, and it won't work with bullies now.
(Although I have to admit that all the free publicity and credibility that we give terrorism by watching every little news item about terrorist strikes, and discussing them for hours is a VERY EFFECTIVE way to encourage terrorism.)
When they knocked down the towers, the best thing we could have done, is built taller towers in their place.
If we can demostrate that their tactics do not successfully inspire fear (that is the point of a terrorist attack), we win. Reactionary wars, and warning systems, and the trumpeting of meassages of fear from the media, and the leadership only help the terrorists acheive their goals.
To use the bully analogy, there are options besides caving and fighting. After the bully punches you. You stand back up, stick out you chest, and look at him, waiting for him to hit you again (they seldom do). Bullies don't know how to deal with this responce. They actually prefer you swing at them...
Re:Then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fighting terrorism does not encourage terrorism.
Invading an unrelated country and calling it 'war against terror' (cos' you know, all those dirty Arabs who don't like the US, it's, like, all the same, no ?) certainly does.
The solution is to fight terrorists, not people who have nothing to do with them, so as not to turn them into terrorists.
Comprende ?
Thomas-
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Informative)
Bin Laden was really upset by the presence of 'infidel' troops in Saudi Arabia. They were a bit inconveniently situated for Bin Laden's aspiration of starting a coup.
Bin Laden's primary focus has always been Saud but Al Zawahiri, often misleadingly referred to as 'Bin Laden's number 2' has been a terrorist for 30 years and his primary focus is Israel. Al Zawahiri was heavily involved in the murder of President Saddat for signing the camp David agreement. Al Zawahiri is the ideological leader of Al Qaeda.
The issue here is not what triggered the attack, the issue is why Al Qaeda was allowed to escape. The Afghan campaign should have been completed before any new military engagement was planned. Instead troops were being pulled from Afghanistan before the job was done. The result was that instead of putting NATO troops on the ground at the Torra Borra the US was withdrawing its specialist forces to prepare for the invasion of Iraq.
Even if Bush's claim that Saddam was involved in 9/11 were true (it has never been substantiated) it was a major tactical error to open a second front before the first was secure.
A second major error was trusting Musharaff, the prime funder and instigator of the Taleban. The democratically elected government of Pakistan had tried to dismiss Musharaff because he had been supporting terrorist groups in Cashmire that looked likely to start a full scale war with India.
The idea that Musharaff is seriously committed to the 'war on terror' is ridiculous. He is only providing the minimum of compliance. He depends on the support of the Islamists to remain in power.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is somewhere in-between (Score:5, Insightful)
Your typical terrorist does indeed usually have a rational goal in mind. These are not people who blow up stuff just for fun, or because a little voice in their head told them to do it - there is usually a very real and logical justification behind their actions.
Where things start to diverge from the typical American worldview is that things that do not matter the slightest bit to an American might matter a great deal to a terrorist - and vice versa. Plus there is often the same confusion of motive between terrorist and Americans as there is between Americans and terrorists. And finally, terrorists are by definition willing to do things considered unconciencable in the American (really, Western) value system.
For example, Western society makes a distinction between "church" and "state", and further makes a distinction between "combatant" and "civillian". Other societies may not, and in particular, the branches of Islamic fundamentalism that are causing all the problems these days do not.
The fundamental problem here is a clash of cultures with very, very different value systems. There's a lot of perfectly normal Western behaviour that to an Islamic fundamentallist of the correct flavour, would be the Western equivelant of painting pentagrams on chruch altars. Certain elements see Western civilization (and American civilization in particular) as being every bit as evil as Nazism, and they are willing to go to great lengths to attack it.
Cast in the right light, the French Resistance during WW2 was a "terrorist" organization. So too was the American Revolutionary Army, with George Washington subbing in for Bin Laden.
That might seem over the top, a sort of psudeo-Godwinesque claim, but there is an essential core truth in there. The French Resistance and George Washington tended to limit their hostillities to military targets, which is seen as "honourable" in Western circles, but that's the Western distinction between soldier and civillian talking. If your culture makes no such distinction, then attacking civillians is not de facto an unconciencable act.
So it is very much a mistake to make the assumption that terrorists are simply irrational killers and dismiss them as such. It behooves Western civilization to understand exactly what the beef the terrorists have, and to examine those complaints in the cold, hard, RATIONAL light of the truth.
Because part of that truth is that the West - and again, America in particular - is not entirely innocent. When people call you the "great Satan" there is usually a reason or two behind it.
In particular, the Israelis have been treating their Arab Palestinean population very, very badly for quite some time now - and the staunchest supporter of Isreal is the USA. That does nothing to endear the US to Arabs in the area - and when the US invades Iraq under false pretences (bringing more Arabs under American colonial rule) that starts to look a lot (from an Arab perspective) like a cultural war being waged on Islam.
The invasion of Iraq has to have been the biggest strategic blunder since the invasion of Poland (or perhaps the invasion of Russia, I'll accept either) by Hitler. How to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.... If the US had concentrated on eliminating the terrorist cells in Afganistan, and then had Marshall Planned Afganistan, the world would be a MUCH safer place right now.
Now as far as the "no single death on American soil" argument goes... Al Quaida has NEVER had much of a presence on American soil. Prior to 9/11, the holder of the most successful terrorist attack in the US was Tim McVey and co, a group of AMERICANS upset at their own government. Al Quaida had made a couple of attempts at the WTC, but they had been dismal, almost laughable, failures. Al Quaida simply wasn't in the business of setting off random bombs at sporting events and shop
Re:go read history (Score:5, Insightful)
It is amazing that people have no historical education about the Middle East and the US involvement in world affairs. To make points short for this post, the US [i]is[/i] the sole reason why the US is hated by many parts of the world. The UK [i]is[/i] the sole reason why the Middle East is divided up as it currently is by religious and ethnic based borders. Even my brother's Army Times newpaper and Soldiers publication point out quite clearly that 'radical' Islamics, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and others are not anti-Democracy or anything of the sort. And these are military publications for military personnel. The 'terrorist' groups are simply attacking the US and the UK because of the US and UK's military and economic support of Israel and other political and military involvement in the Middle East (i.e. US support of Iraq in the 1970's and early 1980's and the true political history and US involvement in Iran). The attacks on the World Trade Center buildings during both US presidential administrations, the attack on the USS Cole, and Pentagon were nothing more than symbolic. The US has not had one single attack on its soil since then because there is no general terrorism threat to the US and there never was one. If there was a genuine terrorism threat, it would not take any effort to poison water supplies, poison food supplies, bomb subways, blow up dams, blow up oil pipelines, etc. None of these things happened before 9/11 and none of these things have happened since 9/11. Again, there is not a general terrorism threat to the US and there never was one. The reasons why the current US presidential administration is using the 9/11 terrorist attacks to gain more control over the US population through fear and thoughtlessness is a conversation for an entirely new thread.
Also, the US is not the world's largest democracy. India is the world's largest democracy. And although India and Pakistan have historically been back-and-forth over Kashmir, why haven't Al Qaeda attacked India like they did the US? Because Al Qaeda is not anti-democracy, but anti-US and anti-UK foreign policy.
I could easily go on, but the number of ignorant and uneducated posts on Slashdot is incredible. So many people simply do not get it. There are posts with everything from calling Al Qaeda crazy and insane to banning Islam in the US. These are all uneducated, knee-jerk reactions which are no different than those views held by the very people you are speaking out against. When people start to become as bad as the people they are trying to change, then nobody wins.
And not to be one-sided, but the Middle East has more than its share of problems all on its own. If the Islamic people learned to stop fighting everyone including themselves, banded together and worked as a single homogeneous union, something akin to the EU the world would be a much different and possibly better place.
On a side note, what will happen when China surpasses the US as the world's largest Superpower? Do you believe Al Qaeda will start attacking China? Unless China gets involved in the Middle East and Israel, then the answer is no. But, if history is any lesson, the US will try to start trouble with China instead and then claim innocence when the shit hits the fan. It is already happening with Taiwan. US citizens will not research it for themselves and the cycle will continue. The next century will be an interesting one indeed.
start learning history... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution [wikipedia.org]
This success and embarassment of the US emboldened the radical Islamists and gave leaders in the Middle East who wanted to organize a fighting force a great way to make one, by claiming that this was a battle for Islam. A tactic we (the US) exploited well in backing Bin Laden against the USSR in Afghanistan.
Our involvement in Iran also led us to believe we had to have someone to support in the Middle East against these radicals. This led to a period of nearly unconditional backing of Israel. Israel knew we were unlikely to drop support of them and thus engaged in many nasty actions against Arab people in neighboring countries. They even attacked one of our own ships. Our backing of Israel during this brutal period didn't help us in the eyes of Bin Laden and other radical Islamists with an axe to grind.
Now all of this isn't to say that if our opponent(s) were more reasonable that things wouldn't have gone differently. But we had plenty of warning in 1978 that there were people in the Middle East using Islam as a cause who would turn their fighters against us if we only gave them a reason to do so.
Apparently we didn't think it'd be a problem. We underestimated the trouble these people could cause of us. This continues under Bush as strong as ever. And that's how we got into two wars at once without the manpower to finish either of them correctly.
Yes - 3 tubes and 1 bus (Score:5, Informative)
conspiracy theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Be prepared to see many conspiracy-theory books in stores soon...
Re:7 bombs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mobile network switched off... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mobile network switched off... (Score:5, Informative)
It's really not surprising the phones have gone down - it seems to go pretty far afield. For instance, I told a colleague in Brussels what had happened, and she understandably tried getting hold of friends in London. Everyone's fine, fortunately, but it seems anyone working or living in London is being inundated with calls right now.
The asynchronous nature of stuff like SMSes and email might be an advantage if you're trying to get hold of someone - it's not like a phone call which needs to connect immediately. Alternatively, try phoning a (non-London) friend or relative of the person you're trying to contact, in case they've heard already.
Re:First Post (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of experts have also pointed to the attack being "typical of Al Qaeda".
Re:First Post (Score:5, Interesting)
Anarchists also aren't organised enough. Violence by these groups tends to be more along the lines of throwing bricks. Of course, only a tiny proportion of the anti-globalisation movement is violent.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More details (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More details (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the flawless logic of the politician - all that anti terrorist legislation didn't work, so lets have more anti terrorist legislation.
Re:More details (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, other than the fact London has been a major target for terrorists for nigh-on 4 years, and this is the first attack to not have been thwated?
+Pete
Re:More details (Score:5, Informative)
You are simply flatly wrong [washingtonpost.com]
Now that we have Google there is no need to invent demonstrably false facts like this. My search terms were "number of terrorist attacks" [google.com], and I tried several permutations and got approximately the same results, so it wasn't a function of the particular terms I used. Try it sometime. Perhaps you were originally misinformed by something having to do with this [washingtonpost.com].
Re:More details (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorist organisations that have increased their membership as a result of governments "trying to take them out":
- the Provisional IRA
- ETA
- PLO and PFLP
- almost all Resistance organisations in Europe during the Second World War - but especially the French
- ANC
- lot and lots and lots of others
- any organisation I would join if some other country was bombing civillian men, women and children round my way on the grounds that they may hit a terrorist as well
Terrorist organisations which have been defeated as a result of governments trying to "take them out"
- Dutch resistance during the Second World War (temporarily - and due to inflitration by native Dutch speakers and code intercepts rather than shooting and bombing).
er... that's all I can think of.
Sure. Let's go with the proven tactic.
Re:More details (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen lots of people around with this notion. So the question is, how and why did these people become brainwashed?
Let's say that you personally had the power to go out and put a bullet in the brain of every single person who is currently brainwashed. Consider that, perhaps, these people are becoming "brainwashed" because they've grown up in an environment where they've lost friends and family members; that maybe other social groups have dominated their group by brutal force. It is quite possible that, given the hundreds (or thousands?) of people that you'll be offing, there'll be hundreds or thousands of their friends and family members who will then be ripe for new brainwashing...
There is no doubt, the people who perpetrated this attack are sick bastards. They do deserve death. But if we simply go out and start killing people in kind, don't we just become terrorists ourselves?
--John
Not Even Close (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple fact is that terrorists attack the US because they are seriously pissed off at our foreign policies, and if we would just quit trying to be the world's self appointed police force, terrorist attacks would decline dramatically.
Re:More details (Score:5, Interesting)
Does your fear arise from an unmet expectation that the legislation would prevent terrorism, or from an anticipation of even worse measures now that a continuing vulnerability has been demonstrated?
Re:More details (Score:5, Insightful)
Count has to be higher (Score:5, Informative)
I am writing this from an office block over the road from Bishopsgate and there is almost nothing on the roads apart from police and emergency veicles.I got caught halfway to work this morning and had to walk the rest of the way, I wish I had walked home instead but for a long time the announcements were talking of power failure rather than bombs and everyone assumed they would get the power working again. I guess this was a way of preventing panic.
So I hope and pray the numbers are low but the thoughs of my colleages and I are with those who were caught in these awful events, as they were with the people in 9/11. I will also be going to give blood as soon as they announce where we can do this.
Fuck you, man. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Respond with more force (Score:5, Informative)
Halabja was a quarter the population of Fallujah, and by far the largest of his attacks, and didn't have anywhere near a total loss like the GGP called for. Also, while mass graves of what in many cases were brutal atrocities have been turning up, they're nowhere near the numbers that people were putting forth before the war - under 20,000 with about a third of all suspected gravesites visited (in order of estimated importance), many of those being likely killed in the Iran-Iraq war and the Shia rebellion, and few in recent years. Still war crimes, mind you, but nothing like was portrayed pre-war.
lunatics (cough.. Iran cough..)
I don't agree with a lot of Iran's policies, but portraying them as "lunatics" is unfair. They're sane (and want to live) - they just *really, really don't like us* (less than Europe, even
Are they still killing people with tanks
Misnomer. You refer to the Tiananmen Square incident with the man standing up to a tank. The man was not killed by the tank; the standoff lasted well over an hour, after which the man actually climbed *on top* of the tank so he could talk with the tank commander; concerned onlookers grabbed him off of the tank and pulled him into the crowd. The exact number of people being killed by tanks by any means is unknown, but there were no reports, at the very least, of people being run over by tanks (a common myth).
The square had long been a site of major protests (being the symbolic heart of the country, just south of the ancient Forbidden City), including in 1919, 1976, and the famous one in 1989. The ratio of protesters to deaths was about the same as at Kent State (if you only count Beijing), but the total scale of the scene was far, far larger - over 100,000 protesters in the square and 1-2 million nationwide, with between a few hundred and a few thousand protesters killed and between a few dozen and few hundred soldiers killed (a classified NSA report and the Chinese official report being low, student reports and newspaper reports being high).
Are they still promoting slave labor in their factories
What you refer to is "prisoner labor", which, while still forced labor, carries a much different connotation, as the vast majority of political prisoners were released in the Deng Xiaoping reforms and most people don't have nearly as much of a problem with murderers and rapists being forced to work as they do with the notion of "slave labor". More specifically, you refer to Laogai - "reform through labor". For both the Laogai and Tiananmen Square incidents, I suggest you read the Wikipedia articles on the subjects - they've been edited back and forth so much that all sides are pretty well represented.
Are they still leaving their baby girls in the street to die
That's not a government practice (and is somewhat of a distortion of the actual practices that lead to China's gender imbalance, which is due to a variety of male-favoring practices, not simply "exposure"). It's an individual practice, and is most common in the countryside where the government exerts less influence. The practice is rooted in Confucian tradition, and has been made worse by Chinese attempts at population control. The government has made a number of (some would claim half-hearted) attempts to stop such practices, such as banning physicians from revealing the sex of a child before it is born to the parents (to prevent sex-selective abortions) and various girl-promotional events (which have been criticized from focusing on a male-centric "what would the world be like without women" perspective).
Is that the "World Leader" country you are talking about
Even with other countries knowing all of the bad stuff China has done (and you were only getting started - China's done a whole lot more), people *still* prefer Chi
Re:Terrible. (Score:5, Funny)
Sweet Jesus, does Dubya know about this?
Re:Fucking Animals (Score:5, Insightful)
This was well planned, and has - so far - had exactly the result the terrorists wanted, London has ground to a standstill with public transport closed for fear of further attacks. London's stock exchange has taken a bit of a tumble, and according to the BBC it has disrupted [bbc.co.uk] the G8 summit.
Not a bad return on the investment in explosives, and I'm sure you could've covered that by betting on the effect on the markets.
Re:Fucking Animals (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism is inherently political. A terrorist does what he does not out of sheer spite but in order to achieve political and ideological goals.
This whole event was political from the beginning. Whether the politics in question are those of Islamic extremism, anti-G8 anarchism or Irish republicanism remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that the bombings were politically motivated.
Re:At the moment (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The real bugger is... (Score:5, Insightful)
In WWII, Stalin deliberately had German commanders assassinated if they were too easy on the native population. If a commander committed atrocities, Stalin reckoned that it would only let people rally against the Germans. So he let the atrocious commanders live, just to keep the atmosphere of conflict going. It's the same thing here, and it's been going in the Middle East for years.
Re:Seven explosions (Score:5, Insightful)
or the insurgents (foreign-funded by the french) that fought against the legitimate british rulers?
or the guerrilla attacks that were considered "barbaric" but used because they were the only means the american rebellion had of beating the british?
i'm not trying to say our "founding fathers" were terrorists -- i'm just saying that these concepts are relative.
Re:Seven explosions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jeez... (Score:5, Interesting)
Their ultimate goal may be to get their opponents to yield, however the very fact that these are terrorist organisations, and not well established armies, mean that they are weak. You resort to terrorism when you're too few to lead guerilla warfare, and guerilla warfare when you are too weak for open conflict. You do it to spread fear and get your enemy to do stupid things, not to "win".
I'm not British, but I live in London and was on the train to Victoria this morning when I heard about the explosions. I did write both about my trip (which was fairly uneventful) and some thoughts on terrorism on my blog [hokstad.com]. Hopefully one day politicians will get a clue, and maybe the terorrist dorks will get a harder time recruiting more people.
Re:Not just about Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
So if someone in the Army is walking in a street, its ok to shoot him because he/she is a valid military target?
Of course.
The kicker is "valid military target". Army personnel "walking in a street" of a country that they are currently invading, for example, and who have not surrendered in any way, are perfectly legitimate targets for the defenders. No body of international law would convict the shooter of war crimes in that case.
Sorry if that's not the answer you wanted, but war has a tendency to suck that way.
Re:Read the Koran (Score:5, Informative)
KJV - Exodus [32:27] And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
KJV - Jeremiah [18:21] Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
KJV - Ephesians [5:5] For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
All sorts of religious texts have been used throughout history to justify abhorrent acts. Nothing new. In my book, if they initiate force against the innocent, they're bad guys.
Death won't stop them either (Score:5, Insightful)
You sound as if you think there's a finite list of terrorists out there, and as soon as we scratch every name off the list then the terrorism problem will be solved! Not a chance - those people were made into terrorists, they weren't born that way. It doesn't matter how many of this generation's terrorists die for their crimes, if there's another equally large generation coming right after them.
I'm not agreeing with the idea that the way to stop the creation of new terrorists from religious zealots is to "treat them better" or "stop offending them" - for all I know it may be just the opposite. But we do need to understand these people, desperately, because it's only understanding or dumb luck that's going to allow us to stop the terrorist meme, and I'm not feeling very lucky.
I admit vengeance sounds pretty nice, but I'd gladly trade it for a more scientific understanding of the sociology of violence. The question of how we make more dead terrorists isn't nearly as important as the question of how we protect more live innocents. If capital punishment for mass murderers is part of that, then fine, but don't lose sight of the goal just because one step along the way is more emotionally compelling.