Slashdot Mirror


Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London

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."

33 of 3,468 comments (clear)

  1. Al Qaeda group claims responsibility by MoonFog · · Score: 5, Informative

    Source

    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!

    1. Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative
      There are relatively few confirmed deaths and casualties. It's known by everyone on the ground, so far as I can see, that the figures are much higher, it's just the government can't say "400 people are dead" until it has a chance to examine 400 bodies.

      Anarchist groups haven't been involved in terrorism since the nineteenth Century and it's hard to believe they'd suddenly start now.

      I don't know if it's Al Qaeda (my understanding is that the latter is more an umbrella term anyway, see here for an interesting discussion, the four or so paragraphs starting from "That would seem to cut out Asimov"), but that said, the only other movement I can see engaging in terrorism in Britain would be some sort of break-away Irish group, a disaffected wing of the IRA or something, and I really don't recall the IRA ever doing anything so big. Their worst attrocities were two incidents where they blew up pubs.

      Realistically, Bin Laden's groups are the only likely culprits at this stage. I'm not sure I want to be proven wrong, because we'd be seeing a substantial new terrorist movement, be it the revival of a more extreme IRA or a third group.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility by whopis · · 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.

    3. Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    4. Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility by FrostedWheat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Their worst attrocities were two incidents where they blew up pubs.

      Oh, and that one little incident in Brighton where they tried to kill most of the entire British government.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombin g

  2. Responsibility by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 4, Informative

    BBC News have reports on Spiegel Online that is displaying the text that Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for today's attacks in London.

    (translation)

    --
    I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
  3. travel updates for Southern england by dj_paulgibbs · · Score: 5, Informative

    London Underground - ALL suspended until further notice (not likely to be today) It is advised NOT to travel into London Marylebone, Cannon Street, Liverpool Street, Kings Cross, St Pancras, Euston, Victoria, Paddington, and Charing Cross are all closed until further notice Thameslink Rail services are not running AT ALL. Brighton and East Croydon stations are closed due to a security alert. According to National Rail Enquiries, Southern trains services are running "normal" services OUT OF LONDON only. Gatwick Express is still running but terminating at Clapham Junction. Heathrow Express has been terminated until further notice. It seems trains are running as far as Clapham Junction. Stations are being periodically closed and re-opened after they have been security checked so do call National Rail enquiries to check your journey first. Trains are of course going to be delayed by varying amounts as a result. Checking your journey by calling national rail enquiries is of course recommended - 08457 484950 option 2 Websites - http://www.networkrail.co.uk/ and particularly http://nrekb.com/london_underground.html

  4. Re:7 bombs by AltGrendel · · Score: 5, Informative
    There were initial reports of one that didn't explode. So there may have been 8 and they may have one to reverse engineer.

    That could make things interesting.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  5. FYI... by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Vodafone and others have warned that emergency services will have priority on the GSM networks. Expect congestion and unreachable people if you try to join them on their cell phones.

    Londoners have been warned to stay at home. Commuters have been warned to avoid London.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  6. Mobile phone net by Sallust · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those of you interested, the mobile phone network has been switched to a Security Services only mode so members of the public can only make emergency 999 calls.

    --
    If there be few amongst us, our hearts be very great, and each shall have more plunder, and each shall have more plate
  7. Get the latest from BBC by Codeala · · Score: 5, Informative

    The latest news directly from the ad-free and registration-free BBC:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/london _explosions/

    (/. don't allow me to post anonymously...)

    --

    Codeala - Just another mindless drone
  8. Re:Mobiles by ettlz · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Government switches off mobiles in London automatically in any state of emergency (terror-related or otherwise) to keep the spectrum free for the emergency services. (See, for example, the Channel 4 documentary Mark Thomas's Secret Map of Britain.)

  9. Re:First Post by MoonFog · · Score: 5, Informative

    An Al Qaeda groups has claimed responsibility already.

    A lot of experts have also pointed to the attack being "typical of Al Qaeda".

  10. As it breaks... by irokie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Been following this for the last 3 hours.
    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.

    --
    and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
  11. Some details by LizardKing · · 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.

    1. Re:Some details by ynnaD · · Score: 5, Informative

      I too was on the tube when this all happened, and can confirm the above.

      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.

  12. Re:More details by bheading · · Score: 5, Informative

    We can be pretty well assured that there will be more than two deaths. The London Underground will have been jam-packed.

    In London when there is a problem with the tube, connecting buses are brought in to substitute.It appears that the terrorist attack was carefully organized so that people being moved from the tube onto buses would also be moved into danger. If it is AQ, I'm scared that all of the heavy anti-terrorist legislation appears to have had no effect; if it's not AQ I'm even more scared.

  13. Maybe 4 bombs by Misanthropic+Lycanth · · Score: 5, Informative

    I heard on CNN that the same explosions were being reported by multiple stations due to the fact that they exploded on trains between tube stations.

    --

    Physics: Making the universe open source.
    1. Re:Maybe 4 bombs by ryanov · · Score: 5, Informative
      The "mindset of the left" phrasing is rhetoric that is designed to make people angry -- I see through it and it's not going to work. You cannot separate people into two groups.

      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 .
      Some more of that in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United _States_(1988-present)

    2. Re:Maybe 4 bombs by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Informative
      Oh please, then what triggered 9/11?

      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.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    3. Re:Maybe 4 bombs by danheskett · · Score: 4, Informative

      why hasnt he attacked Saudi Arabia even once? why isnt he going after the royal family since they are clearly the ones he should have the biggest beef with.
      There were attacks against Saudi Arabia. (sorry, login required) There has been an extensive 2 year long battle against bin laden inspired terrorists within the Kingdom - this article gives some good background.

      Second, about the whole "black sheep" thing. He was expelled from the Kingdom in the 1990's and hasn't been back since. He would have been executed for except that his family is very powerful (he has 50 some odd brothers and sisters, all in good standing). His father was a famed construction magnate who rebuilt and refurbished much of Mecca's holy buildings and a friend of the King.

      So here is the thing about your comment.

      You have no grasp of Middle-Eastern politics. Even dedicatd amatuers have a hard time keeping up with it, and it's why we have a State Department with analysts who watch this all the time. This is meant as no insult.

      Basically, what you have to understand is this: the Saudi royal family is pro-Western. However, they are not in complete dictorial control of the country as you may imagine. They rule only at the grace of clerics who are dedicated Wahabists and are decidely anti-Western. If the royal family fell from power the Kingdom would quickly fall into the hands of Taliban-esque clerics with *piles* and *piles* and *piles* of money at their command. Wealth that is, frankly, astounding. Plus more to be mined every day. Imagine the Taliban complete with half a trillion dollars in cash.

      Clearly, the royals are not our best "allys". They do not have a free hand to rule as they would wish. And even if they did, they'd probably be bastards. They should have no problem providing jobs, yet 25% of the workforce is unemployed. Yet if the balance of power tilts to far to the clerics, they will be deposed and the new regime will not just be a little bit worse, but rather, violently anti-American.

      The Saudi royal family are the ones you see on TV, smeared and linked to the 9/11 bombers by special interest groups. Bush took heat for being easy on them. What none of these groups understand is how precarious their position is. If the Saud family loses control of the Kingdom the US's security interests would be massively hurt, for one, in terms of oil, but two, in terms of an Afganistan like safe-haven but with massive income and revenue. Just because we would stop buying oil from them doesn't mean Europe or China would. After the US was let into the Kingdom during Gulf War I they nearly lost control to the clerics. Bitter repression was required to control them and maintain power.
      This whole power struggle is why you see Bush walking and talking with the royals and holding hands and all that and at the same time read about madrasa's that won't let girls leave a burning building because they weren't covered properly. They are secular leaders running a nation cowed into blind subserviance by iron fisted religious leaders.

      Anyways, I hope this helps you to understand just a little what the situation in Saudia Arabia consists of.

  14. Re:Mobile network switched off... by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 4, Informative

    Capacity being diverted to emergency services, too.

    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.

    --
    Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  15. Re:At the moment by Oxygen99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, they didn't. Look at the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings, Omagh or Warrington. The IRA had no more respect for civilians than any other terrorist organisation.

    --
    I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
  16. Count has to be higher by alistair · · Score: 5, Informative

    7 bombs and 2 deaths, the BBC web site has got this wrong. The bus in Russel Square was a double decker, packed with people leaving the tube and it was completely destroyed, these busses hold around 90 people when packed. The aAldgate explosion looked very bad an eyewitnesses were talking of 20 deaths. They are still cutting people from the tube at Russel square and there any many abulances at King Cross.

    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.

    1. Re:Count has to be higher by ds_job · · Score: 4, Informative

      From http://www.blood.co.uk/press_releases/London%20bom b%20blasts%2007.07.05.doc : -
      news release
      National Blood Service
      Date: Thursday 7th July 2005

      Re: Bomb blasts in London

      In light of events in London today, the National Blood Service would like to reassure the public that blood stocks are currently healthy and it will meet the demand for blood from hospitals if requested.

      All blood donors who are due to give blood today should keep their appointments. Anyone wishing to give blood or who would like to know where their nearest blood collection session is should call 0845 7 711 711 or log on to www.blood.co.uk.

  17. Excellent Wikipedia page on the Bombs by jonathan_ingram · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's already an excellent Wikipedia article on the bombs here -- it's being continually updated, contains emergency phone numbers, and seems to be a good accurate summary of what we know so far.

  18. Yes - 3 tubes and 1 bus by ColourlessGreenIdeas · · Score: 4, Informative

    The current info seems to be 1 near Liverpool Street (people leaving via Liverpool Street, Aldgate, Aldgate East and Moorgate (There may have been a semi-related collision between 2 trains here too), 1 between Kings X and Russell Square, and one by Edgeware Road (that's the subsurface edgeware road, I think) Then there was 1 bomb on a bus by Tavistock Square, rumoured to be a suicide attack. 2 confirmed deaths at Liverpool Street (but no info for ages), 10 deaths reported from the bus (unofficial but reliable source; someone from the British Medical Association who helped at the scene) and no accurate numbers from the other 2 sites. 200-odd people in hospital in total.

    --
    In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
  19. I'm going to disagree by Degrees · · Score: 4, Informative
    They do hate us for meddling.

    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.

    --
    "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
  20. Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It! by Concern · · Score: 4, Informative

    The US (and/or the West) are not responsible exclusively, or even mostly, for the situation in the mideast.

    Are you familiar with what we did in Iran?

    Our awful, and bloodthirsty, actions in Iran destabilized a popular, realtively moderate (if nationalist) democracy and installed a pro-western puppet, who clung to power with a secret police 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..."

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  21. Re:More details by learn+fast · · Score: 4, Informative

    Simple fact is that after attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 and going after terrorists aggressively for a change, the number of terrorist attacks has not risen from normal even during the "jihad against all involved" claims.

    You are simply flatly wrong

    Now that we have Google there is no need to invent demonstrably false facts like this. My search terms were "number of terrorist attacks", 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.

  22. Re:You're an embarrassment to your country. by chris_mahan · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm French, and I found it funny... Although I would add that the French would have been about 6 months late and would had scaled back to just 1 small bomb.

    On another note:

    The Preambule of the US Constitution states:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    From wikisource: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Uni ted_States_of_America

    Notice the last word? America.

    Seriously: my condolences to those who were hurt, lost loved ones, and cheers to Londoners who need to get on with it.

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."

  23. Re:Read the Koran by Verminator · · Score: 5, Informative
    Of course, there's nothing hateful like that in the King James Bible.

    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.

    --
    "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
  24. Re:Respond with more force by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, that is kind of what Saddam did

    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 ;) ). Getting into the reasons behind that would take a discussion all of its own.

    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

    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."